LILA GUPTA versus LAXMI NARAIN & ORS.

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 922 · Decided: 04-05-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
922 
LILA GUPTA 
v. 
LAXMI NARAIN & ORS. 
May 4, 1978 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., D. A. 
DESAI AND R. S. 
PATHAK, JJ.J 
Ilindu Marriage Act, 1955-s. 15, scope of-Whether a rnarriage contracted 
in contravention of or in violation of the proviso to s. 15 of the Act is void of 
1nerely invalid not affecting the core of 1narriage and the· parties are 
subiect 
to a binding the of wedlock fioi,ring fron1 the 1narriage. 
The husband of the appellant-late Ra·jcndra Kumar had earlier to the 
marriage with her, contracted a marriage \Vith one Sada Gupta. 
Both 
Rajendra Kumar and Sarla Gupta- filed suits against each other praying for 
a decree of divorce, which were decreed on April 8, 1963 granting the di· 
vorce. 
The marriage with the appellant Lila Gupta was solemnised on May 
25, 1963 i.e. after a month and 17 days from the date of the decree of 
divorce. 
Rajendra Kumar expired on May 7, 1965. Disputes arose in con-
solidation proceedings ,between the appellant claiming as widow of Rajendra 
Kumar and respondents who were brothers and brothers' sons of Rajendra 
Kumar about succession to the Bhumidari rights in respect of certain plots 
of land enjoyed by Rajendra Kumar in his life time, the latter challenging 
the status of the appellant to be the widow of Rajendra Ktimar on the ground 
that her marriage \Vith Rajendra Kumar was void having been contracted 1n 
violation of the provisions contained in the proviso to s. 15 of the 
Hindu 
Marriage Act, 1955. 
The final authority Deputy Director of Con!>olidation 
apheld the claim of the appellant and this decision was challenged by the 
respondents in six petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution in 
the High Court of Allahabad. 
The learned Single Judge before whom 
the petitions came up for hearing was of the opinion that the marriage of 
Rnjendra Kumar with the present appellant on May 25, 1963, being 
in con-
travention of the proviso to s. 15 was null and void and accordingly allowed 
the writ petitions. 
The Division Benell dismissed the further appeals by the 
appellant, confirmed the order of the learned single Judge and granted a 
certificate under Article 133(1) (c) . 
. i\lJov.·ing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : ( 1) Examining the matter from all possible angles and keeping in 
vie¥.' t11e fact that the scheme of the Act provides for treating certain man'iages 
void and simultaneously some marriages which are made punishable yet not 
void and no consequences having been provided for in respect of the n1arriage 
in contravention of the proviso to s. 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955 it 
cannot be said that such 1narriage would be void. 
In the instant case, as the 
marriage of the appellant, even though in contravention of the provisions of 
Section 15 is not void, she cannot be denied the status of wife and, there-
fore the \vidow of deceased Rajendra Kumar and in that capacity as an heir 
to him. 
[937 D-F] 
(2) A comprehensive revie\V of the relevant provisions of the Act un-
mistakably manifests the legislative thrust that every marriage solemnised in 
contravl!ntion or one of other condition 
pr~cribed for valid marriage 
is 
not void. These express provisions in the Act would show that Parliament 
was aware about treating any specific marriage 
void 
and 
only 
speCific 
marriages punishable. 
This express provision pl'lma facle would go a long 
way to negative any suggestion of a marriage being void though not covered 
by s. 11 such as in breach of proviso to s. 15 as being void by necessary 
implication. The net effect of it is that at any 
rate 
Parliament did 
not 
think fit to treat such marriage void or that it is so opposed to pilblic policy 
as to make it punishable. 
[929 A-B, F-G] 
,• 
-
-
-
• 
• 
• 
.. 
j 
/ ' ' 
LILA GUPTA V. ,LAXMI NARAIN 
923 
(3) While enacting the legislation the framers had in tnind the question 
A 
of treating certain marriages vo~d a;nd 
provi~~ for the . samf?. 
~t w6uld, · 
therefore be fair, to infer as legislabve exposition that a marriage in breach 
of other conditions the legislature did not intend to treat as void while pres-
cribing conditions for valid marriage in s. 5, e~h of. the six conditions 
w~ 
not considered as sacrosanct as to render mamage m breach of each of It 
void 
Even where a marriage in breach of a certain condition is 
made 
puni~haoble under s. 18 of the Act, yet the law does not treat it as voitl. 
The marriage in breach of the proviso is neither punishab

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.