Special Marriage Act | Even Parties To A Void Marriage Can Approach Family Court For Redressal Of Grievances: Kerala High Court

The Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice C.Pratheep Kumar observed that even parties to a void marriage can approach the Family Court for the redressal of their grievances.

“Therefore, from a conjoined reading of Section 24 (1)(i) of Special Marriage Act and Explanation (a) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, it is evident that a marriage which is void, as defined under Section 24 of the Special Marriage Act, will remain valid for all practical purposes, unless it is annulled in a suit or proceedings before the Family Court. In other words, from the above provisions, it can also be safely concluded that even the parties to a void marriage can approach the Family Court for redressing their grievance and as such this point is liable to be answered in the negative.”

Section 24 of the Special Marriage Act pertains to void marriage and Section 7 of the Family Courts Act deals with jurisdiction of courts.

The appellant-husband has approached the High Court against the order passed by the Family Court, Kalpetta directing him to money that he owes to the respondent-wife.

The parties got married according to the provisions of the Special Marriage Act in the year 2016. This was the appellant's second marriage and the third marriage of the respondent.

After the marriage, the parties went to Canada where the respondent paid a certain amount of money for the education of the appellant. After their relationship was strained, the respondent approached the Family Court to realize the amount of money spent on the education of the appellant.

The appellant alleged that since the earlier marriage of the respondent was not dissolved at the time of their marriage, the marriage between the appellant and respondent was a void marriage and thus the Family Court lacked jurisdiction. He argued that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the original petition filed by the respondent and only the Civil Court had the jurisdiction.

The Court found that when the marriage between the parties took place, the earlier marriage of the respondent was subsisting and not dissolved. Thus, it stated that the marriage between the appellant and respondent was void as per the provisions of the Special Marriage Act.

On perusing Section 24 of the Special Marriage Act, the Court stated thus:

“Section 24(1)(i) of the Special Marriage Act provides that if at the time of marriage if either party had a spouse living, the said marriage shall be null and void and may, on a petition presented by either party thereto against the other party, be so declared by a decree of nullity.”

Further, Section 7 of the Family Courts Act reads thus:

“(a) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage to be null and void or, as the case may be, annulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage;”

On interpreting both the provisions, the Court held that the grievances of parties of a void marriage could be determined by the Family Court.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Family Court.

Counsel for the appellant: Advocates Krishna Prasad. S Sindhu.S.Kamath Swapna.S.K Rohini Nair Suraj Kumar.D.

Counsel for the respondent: Advocate M Zohra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 56

Case title: Joseph A U v Princy P J

Case number: MAT.APPEAL NO. 327 OF 2022