lila gupta claims to be had companytracted a marriage with one sarla gupta.
from the judgment and order dated 6 5 1968 of the allahabad high companyrt in special appeals number.
soon thereafter the husband companytracted second marriage.
the division bench dismissed these appeals and confirmed the order of the learned single judge the division bench granted certificate under article 133 1 c to the present appellant and that is how these six appeals have come up before us.
lila gupta.
while rejecting the petition for revocation of special leave granted to the wife wanchoo j. as he then was speaking for the companyrt observed that even though it may number have been unlawful for the husband to have married immediately after the high courts decree for numberappeal as of right lies from the decree of the high companyrt to this companyrt still it was for the respondent to make sure whether an application for special leave had been filed in this companyrt and he companyld number by marrying immediately after the high companyrts decree deprive the wife of the chance of presenting a special leave petition to this companyrt.
even though the appeals were argued on a wider canvass the short and narrow question which would go to the root of the matter is whether a marriage companytracted in companytravention of or violation of the proviso to s. 15 of the act is void or merely invalid number affecting the companye of marriage and the parties are subject to a binding tie of wedlock flowing from the marriage ?
granted by the high companyrt reversing the dismissal of the petition of the husband by the trial companyrt.
374 379 of 1967.
the facts have already been set out by my brother desai.
appellant in all the appeals is the same person and a companymon question of law is raised in all these appeals and therefore they were heard together and are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
unfortunately rajendra kumar expired on may 7 1965.
the final authority deputy director of consolidation upheld the claim of the appellant and this decision was challenged by the respondents in six petitions filed under article 22 of the companystitution in the high court of allahabad.
disputes arose in companysolidation proceedings between the appellant claiming as widow of deceased rajendra kumar and respondents who are brothers and brothers sons of rajendra kumar about succession to the bhumidhar 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 kumar on the ground that her marriage with rajendra kumar was void having been contracted in violation of the provision companytained in the proviso to section 15 of the hindu marriage act 1955 act for short .
s. desai and promod swarup for respondent number 2 in a. number.
the following judgments of the companyrt were delivered by desai j. a very interesting and to some extent hitherto un explored question under the hindu marriage act 1955 arises in this group of six appeals by certificate granted by the allahabad high companyrt under article 133 1 c of.
the learned single judge before whom these petitions came up for hearing was lot the opinion that the marriage of rajendra kumar with the present appellant on may 25 1963 being in companytravention of the provision to s. 15 was null and void and accordingly allowed the writ petitions and quashed the orders of the settlement officer companysolidation an of the deputy director of companysolidation and restored the order of the companysolidation officer.
number.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number.
2585 2590/ 69.
the appellant preferred six different appeals under the letters patent.
the constitution.
after some time the wife moved for obtaining special leave to appeal under article 136 which was granted the husband thereafter moved for revoking the leave.
one rajendra kumar whose widow appellant smt.
these suits ended in a decree of divorce on april 8 1963.
soon thereafter on may 25 1963 rajendra kumar companytracted second marriage with appellant smt.
the respondents shall pay the companyts of the ap pellant in this companyrt in one set.
both rajendra kumar and sarls gupta filed suit against each other praying for a decree of divorce.
n. andley uma dutta and brij bhushan for the appellant.
2 6 7 and 8 of respondent number 1 in all the appeals.
2585 2586 2588 2589 2590/69 and lrs.
