Void Marriage Cannot Confer Legal Status: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Injunction Against Woman Claiming Wife’s Status in Bigamy Dispute

"Marriage During the Subistence of a Valid Prior Marriage Is Void in the Eyes of Law" – Madhya Pradesh High Court (Justice Alok Awasthi) dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the order of the District Judge, Indore, which had granted a temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from representing herself as the wife of the respondent.

The High Court upheld the appellate court’s finding that a second marriage solemnized during the lifetime of a legally wedded spouse is void ab initio under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and emphasized that no enforceable legal right can accrue from such a void marriage, especially in the context of injunctive relief under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC.

"Even If A Ceremony Took Place, It Cannot Override Statutory Prohibition Against Bigamy" – Court Affirms Respondent’s Legal Marital Status

In a significant matrimonial dispute involving allegations of deception, bigamy, and misuse of legal processes, the High Court has drawn a clear line reaffirming the statutory prohibition on second marriages during the lifetime of a legally wedded spouse. The petition challenged an interim order of injunction granted by the appellate court restraining the petitioner from projecting herself as the respondent’s wife, a claim rooted in an alleged 2016 temple marriage.

Justice Awasthi, in dismissing the petition, emphasized that “even assuming that a ceremony took place on 29.05.2016, such ceremony cannot confer upon the petitioner the legal status of a wife” in light of the respondent’s existing marriage with Smt. Rekha Dhakad, which was found to be subsisting.

The petitioner, Smt. Maya Dhakad, came into contact with the respondent, Shri Bharat Dhakad, through social media in 2016. Claiming to be a widower with one son, the respondent allegedly convinced the petitioner—a divorcee with a daughter—to marry him in a temple ceremony on 29 May 2016.

According to the petitioner, they began residing together as husband and wife, only for her to later discover that the respondent’s first marriage had never been dissolved. She accused him of fraud, emotional exploitation, and abuse, and initiated criminal proceedings under Section 376 IPC, alongside proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS, 2023).

The respondent, in retaliation, filed a civil suit for permanent injunction, seeking to prevent the petitioner from representing herself as his wife. While the trial court dismissed the injunction application, the District Judge, Indore, reversed the decision and granted temporary injunction in favor of the respondent, prompting the petitioner’s Article 227 writ before the High Court.

The central question before the High Court was whether the petitioner had any enforceable prima facie legal right to present herself as the wife of the respondent in view of the subsistence of the respondent’s first marriage.

The Court squarely relied on Section 5(i) and Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which render a marriage void if it is solemnized during the lifetime of a spouse from a prior valid marriage. Justice Awasthi observed:

“Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a second marriage solemnized during the subsistence of the first marriage is void ab initio under Section 11 read with Section 5(i)... such ceremony cannot confer upon the petitioner the legal status of a wife.”

The petitioner sought to rely on a ‘Daan Patra’ executed by the respondent’s father, and a ‘Shapath Patra’ (sworn affidavit) by the respondent’s first wife—both expressing emotional acceptance and no objection to the second union. However, the High Court firmly held:

“The documents relied upon by the petitioner, namely the Daan Patra and Shapath Patra, even if taken at face value, cannot override statutory provisions or validate a void marriage.”

The Court further emphasized that the appellate court’s decision to restrain the petitioner from making false representations was grounded in lawful exercise of discretion. Citing Dalpat Kumar vs. Prahlad Singh (AIR 1993 SC 276) and Wander Ltd. vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., (1990 Supp SCC 727), the Court reiterated:

“No relief can be granted to a party not approaching the court with clean hands.”

Rejecting the petitioner’s contention that the appellate court had misapplied legal standards or ignored fraud by the respondent, the Court held:

“The appellate court considered the relevant material and correctly applied the settled principles governing temporary injunctions. No perversity, jurisdictional error, or illegality is shown.”

It was also noted that the petitioner’s claim was devoid of any prima facie legal right, an essential condition for grant of injunction under Order 39 CPC. The Court observed:

“The petitioner has no legal right to represent herself as the respondent’s wife or to use his name as her spouse.”

Importantly, the High Court found no grounds for interference under its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, as the appellate court’s discretion had been lawfully exercised.

Upholding the sanctity of statutory marital norms under the Hindu Marriage Act, the Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to extend any legal recognition to a relationship stemming from a void marriage. The Court affirmed that emotional documents or social conduct could not confer spousal rights in contravention of codified personal law.

The judgment sends a clear signal that no amount of consent, affidavits, or representations can cure the illegality of a void marriage, and that courts will not protect misrepresentations that undermine established legal marital status.

Date of Decision: 5 December 2025