ISSUE II: WHETHER THE MARRIAGE OF SUNIL AGARWAL WITH
MEENAKSHI GUPTA IS LEGALLY VALID MARRIAGE?
[¶1] It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the marriage between Sunil
Agarwal and Meenakshi Gupta is legally void, as it was solemnized while an appeal against
the annulment of his first marriage with Preesha Samson was still pending. Under family law,
a second marriage entered into while a previous marriage is sub judice (under appeal) or
legally subsisting is void ab initio. This lack of validity has direct implications on
Meenakshi’s legal status of marriage.
The invalidity of this marriage can be established through a three-fold analysis.
[2.1] The Marriage Between Sunil and Meenakshi Was Contracted During the
Pendency of Preesha’s Appeal, Rendering It Void
[¶2] It is humbly submitted that Sunil Agarwal married Meenakshi Gupta on March 1, 2008,
even though Preesha Samson had filed an appeal on March 8, 2008, challenging the Family
Court’s decree annulling her marriage. A pending appeal prevents the finality of a decree, and
as a consequence, Sunil’s marital status was not yet conclusively determined when he
remarried.
[¶3] The doctrine of lis pendens, recognized under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882, prevents any party from altering its legal status while a judicial dispute is ongoing.
This principle was reaffirmed in Krishna Kumar v. Union of India, where the Court held that
any act affecting a disputed legal right must be suspended until judicial resolution.
[¶4] In Smt. Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled that a second
marriage entered into without obtaining a legally binding divorce is void ab initio.
Furthermore, A. Subash Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh reiterated that a pending judicial
process over marital status prevents a second marriage from being legally recognized.
[¶5] Scholars like Wade & Forsyth in Administrative Law have argued that, 'legal disputes
must be resolved through a conclusive verdict before subsequent actions are undertaken’.
Sunil’s second marriage, contracted while his marital status was still contested, violates this
principle and must be declared void.
[2.2] The Second Marriage Contravenes the Prohibition of Bigamy Under Hindu Law
[¶6] It is humbly submitted that Sunil Agarwal was governed by the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 (HMA). Section 5(i) of the HMA states that for a marriage to be legally valid, neither
party should have a living spouse at the time of solemnization.
[¶7] In Lily Thomas v. Union of India, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that bigamy is strictly
prohibited under Hindu law, and a second marriage while the first is still legally subsisting is
void under Section 11 of the HMA.
[¶8] Furthermore, under Section 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, bigamy
is a criminal offense, replacing Section 494 of the IPC. It clearly states that:
"Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is
void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished
with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to a fine."
[¶9] In Yamunabai v. Anant Rao, the Supreme Court held that a second wife in a void
marriage has no legal status and is not entitled to maintenance or property rights. Similarly, in
Indira Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, the Court ruled that only legally wedded wives have
enforceable marital rights under Hindu law.
[¶10] Justice Krishna Iyer, in A. Subash Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, observed that
bigamous marriages not only lack legal recognition but also undermine the foundational
principles of personal law and social justice. Upholding the validity of Sunil’s second
marriage would dilute the sanctity of Hindu marriage laws and create legal uncertainty.
[¶16] In light of the foregoing arguments, it is humbly submitted that:
1. The marriage between Sunil Agarwal and Meenakshi Gupta was void ab initio, as it
was solemnized while Preesha’s appeal was pending.
2. Meenakshi Gupta cannot be recognized as Sunil Agarwal’s lawful wife.
[¶17] This Hon’ble Court is therefore urged to:
Declare the marriage between Sunil Agarwal and Meenakshi Gupta void under
Section 5(i) and Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Deny any legal recognition to Meenakshi’s status as a wife and her claims over
Sunil’s estate.
Thus, recognizing Meenakshi’s claims would not only violate statutory provisions but also
undermine the rule of law, fairness, and judicial integrity.
