The Telangana High Court has ruled that a second marriage contracted without obtaining a valid divorce from the first spouse is void ab initio under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The court further held that if a second wife consents to cohabitation under the false belief of a lawful marriage, it constitutes rape.

A division bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao was hearing an appeal against an order of the I Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad.

The trial court had dismissed the second wife’s plea seeking annulment of marriage and alimony.

The appellant had filed a petition under Sections 11 (void marriages), 5 (conditions for a Hindu marriage), and 25 (permanent alimony and maintenance) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, contending that her husband was not legally divorced from his first wife at the time of their marriage. She alleged that the respondent had fraudulently misrepresented his marital status, leading her to believe he was legally divorced. The appellant also sought alimony of ₹1 crore.

The trial court rejected her plea, reasoning that she was aware of the respondent’s first marriage and had not furnished financial documents supporting her alimony claim. However, the High Court overturned this decision, granting the appeal.

The court noted that the respondent failed to establish that he had obtained a customary divorce from his first wife, who had been in a coma for the past 14 years. Consequently, his second marriage was legally void under Section 5(i) read with Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Emphasizing the respondent’s culpability, the court stated: “Since the respondent knew at the material point of time that he had a wife living when he engaged in physical relations with the appellant, and since the appellant’s consent was based on the belief that the respondent was her lawfully wedded husband, he is guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 375 and 376 of the IPC and, alternatively, under Sections 63 and 64 of the BNS.”

The High Court criticized the trial court for disregarding the invalidity of the marriage while denying alimony, calling its reasoning “presumptuous and objectionable.” The court observed that the trial court had unfairly imputed knowledge of the respondent’s marital status to the appellant without proper evidence.

Highlighting a contradiction in the trial court’s ruling, the High Court pointed out that while alimony was denied on the basis that the appellant was a second wife, the lower court had failed to determine whether the respondent’s first marriage was still valid.

“The Trial Court failed to consider that a marriage between the appellant and the respondent, both Hindus, could not have been legally solemnized if the respondent had a spouse living at the time of the marriage,” the bench noted.

Accordingly, the High Court annulled the marriage, set aside the trial court’s order, and held the respondent guilty of rape.

Additionally, the court rejected the trial court’s finding that the appellant was ineligible for alimony due to her status as a second wife, calling it “wholly perverse.” Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sukhdev Singh Vs. Sukhbir Kaur, the bench reaffirmed that a spouse from a void marriage is entitled to claim alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Case Details:

• Case Number: FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.19 of 2025

• Appearance: Advocate Duvva Pavan Kumar (For the appellant); Advocate U. Sri Pranav (For the respondent).