A man has been denied permission by a Delhi court to tie nuptial knot again during subsistence of his first marriage with the judge saying that he cannot be allowed to commit the “crime of bigamy”.
Senior Civil Judge Ajay Goel restrained Gorakhpur native from re-marrying before annulment of his first marriage,the plea for which is pending in another court. He gave the order,upholding a trial’s court order,which had said there was “infirmity or illegality” in the plea.
“The validity or invalidity of the marriage is to be seen by the court where the petition of annulment of marriage was filed by the appellant (man) is pending. This court cannot allow the commission of crime of bigamy by him by not allowing the application (of the woman).
“The plaintiff (woman) is legally-wedded wife till the marriage is annulled. The rights of the plaintiff cannot be allowed to be left in lurch and marred as prima facie case lies in her favour,” the court said.
While dismissing the man’s plea to set aside the order of the trial court restraining him from re-marrying,SCJ Goel said the husband has failed to explain why he was in a hurry to get married again.
“Defendant no. 2 (the man’s proposed second wife) cannot be allowed to have any right during the subsistence of first marriage….The hardship is more to the plaintiff (first wife) rather than to the man. Balance of convenience also lies in favour of plaintiff because it will cause stigma to her for all times to come.
“The man has miserably failed to satisfy the court as to why he is in hurry in getting married again without waiting for the disposal of his petition (of annulment of first marriage),the court said.
The case of the woman was that her marriage with the man was solemnised in July 2009 in an Arya Samaj mandir here at Shankar Nagar and her husband be restrained from re-marrying another woman during subsistence of his first marriage. This plea was allowed by the trial court.
The man had said it was not a marriage as he was forced to exchange garlands in an Arya Samaj mandir.
The court,however,said the man’s acceptance that he had exchanged garlands in a temple showed the occurrence of the event and “even if the marriage is not consummated or there is no physical relation between them,it will still not annul the marriage unless so ordered by competent court of law.”
The man had also challenged the trial court’s order on the ground that it had no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the case.
The plea was rejected by SCJ Goel who said the petition of annulment of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the man in Delhi and this showed he knew that the jurisdiction lies in a Delhi court.
“It is not disputed that the marriage took place in Delhi and parties lastly resided in Delhi,hence it cannot be said that the jurisdiction does not lies in Delhi,” the court said.