Court Junks Plea Against 2nd Husband, Says Relation Invalid

NEW DELHI: Nuptial knot tied with another person during subsistence of the earlier marriage is invalid, a Delhi court has said while dismissing a woman’s plea seeking relief in a domestic violence case filed against her second husband.

The court said the alleged relationship between the woman and the second husband “does not even amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage” as both of them had not divorced their previous spouses.

“Thus, both the parties were incompetent to enter into a valid marriage with each other during the life time of their respective spouses without obtaining divorce from competent court,” Metropolitan Magistrate Shivani Chauhan said.

Denying relief to the woman, the magistrate said, “the alleged relationship in the present case does not even amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.”

The woman had filed applications seeking various reliefs, including compensation and damages under the Domestic Violence Act against the man.

The woman had said she was thrown out of her matrimonial house by her first husband, whom she married in 1994, after which she entered into another wedlock.

Seeking relief, she had contended that she and the man knew about each other’s previous spouses and despite knowing this, they had undergone ceremonies of marriage with each other, hence both parties were equally at fault.

“Hence, the complainant would be the legally wedded wife of respondent(second husband) and be able to claim relief under the present DV Act,” the application claimed.

The court, however, dismissed her plea saying, she did not have the capacity to enter into a valid marriage with the second man or anyone else during the lifetime of her first spouse, without dissolution of her first marriage.

“The first condition of a valid marriage is absent in instant case. This condition cannot be waived of by the fact that the respondent was aware about the existence of the first marriage of the complainant or that he was also previously married,” it said.