BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF GONDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)NO.--OF 2018

Aarti. … Petitioner

v.

Soundarya and Anr … Respondents

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.-- OF 2018

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON‟BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF GONDIA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

II. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

II. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

V. STATEMENT OF ISSUES

VI. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

VII. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI TO FILE THE PRESENT

PETITION?

2. WHETHER SETTING ASIDE OF DIVORCE BY THE HIGH COURT

PARTICULARLY IN THE CASE OF HUSBAND MARRYING SECOND TIME IS
PROPER?

3. WHETHER THE MARRIAGE OF PETITIONER WILL SURVIVE. IF NO, WHAT

ABOUT THE STATUS OF PETITIONER. IF YES, WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHT OF
FIRST WIFE?

VIII. PRAYER
 LIST OF ABBREVIATI ONS

 &-And
 ¶-Paragraph
 AIR-All India Reporter
 ALL-Allahabad
 Anr.-Another
 AP-Andhra Pradesh
 Art.-Article
 Cr.-Criminal
 Edn.-Edition
 Govt.-Government
 HMA-Hindu Marriage Act
 Hon‟ble-Honourable
 i.e.-That is
 No.-Number
 PC-Privy Council
 SC-Schedule Caste
 SC-Supreme Court
 SCC-Supreme Court Cases
 u/s-Under Section
 v.-Versus
 Vol.-Volume
 www-World Wide Web

CASES

 Pritam Singh v. The State AIR 1950 SC 169

 Arunacahalam v. P.S.R Setharathnam AIR 1979 SC 1284
 Central Bank of India v. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir (2008) 13 SCC 17
 Amanullah And Anr V..State Of Bihar And Ors. 2016 ALLSCR (CRI)763:(2016) 6
SCC 699
 Ganga Bhai v. Rambabu 2014
 Prabhu Premlata Gurpur Vs. Prabhu Subraya Gurpur1984(2)BomCR686
 Lata Kamat v. Vilas AIR 1978 SC 1351
 S. P. Shrivastava's case AIR 1980 All 336
 S.K. Bose Vs. Premi Bose I(1992)DMC506
 Prakash Chandra Sharma v. Vimlesh[2002]1SCR50
 Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey, AIR 1967 SC 581
 Chandra Mohini Srivastava v. Avinash Prasad Srivastava and Anr. ,
[1988]2SCR1098
 Tejinder Kaur v. Gurmit Singh 1995 Supp. 4 SCC 642.

BOOKS

 A.G.Gupte, Hindu Law, (1st ED. : 2003) (Premier Publishers Delhi)

 Acharya Shuklendra, “Hindu Law”, Reprint 2009, Modern Law Publications,
New Delhi Anjani Kant, “Women and the Law”, A.P.H. Publishing Corporation,
New Delhi
 Asaf A.A.Fyzee, Outlines of Muhammadan Law, (5th ED. : 2008) (Oxford
University Press New Delhi)
 Dr. Paras Diwan, “Family Law”, Ninth Edition, 2009, Allahabad Law Agency
 Dr.Paras Diwan, Law of Marriage and Divorce, (5th ED. : 2008), (Universal Law
Publishing Co)
 M.N. Srinivasan‟s, “Commentary on The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955”, Second
Edition, Delhi Law House
 M.N.Das, Marriage and Divorce, (6th ED. : 2002) (Eastern Law House New
Delhi)
 S.P.Gupte, Hindu Law in British India, (2nd ED. : 1947) (Premier Publishers
Delhi)
 V.P. Bharatiya, Syed Khalid Rashid‟s Muslim Law, (4th ED. : 2004) (Eastern
Book Company Lucknow)
 Mayne‟s, Treaties on Hindu law and Uses, Edn.17th, (Bharat Law House) 2014
 LEGAL DATABASES

1. Manupatra

2. SCC Online

3. West Law

4. Hein Online

5. JSTOR

LEXICONS

1. Aiyar Ramanathan P , Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition, 2005, Wadhwa Nagpur.

2. Garner Bryana, Black‟s Law Dictionary,7th Edition,1999

LEGISLATIONS

 The Constitution of India, 1950

 The Indian Penal Code
 Hindu Marriage Act,1955
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Gondia has the jurisdiction in this matter under Article 136 of
the Constitution of Gondia which reads as follows:

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India

(2) Nothing in clause ( 1 ) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed
Forces
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Mr. Sundar, a Hindu, married with Mrs. Saundarya, a Hindu by religion on 15th June 2006,
as per Hindu rituals. They resided happily together for 3 years. Thereafter Sundar have
applied for divorce U/sec.13 of Hindu Marriage Act, alleging the conversion of religion by
his wife. The summons were issued to the respondent wife, at the address shown in cause title
which were marked as “refuse to accept”, the family court considering it as good service
proceeded with the matter. The petition went ex-parte against the wife and basing upon the
evidence laid by the husband, the family court has granted the divorce to the husband on 12
December 2009. The copy of the order was sent by husband to the wife by registered post on
the address in cause title.

Thereafter the husband waited for one year and got remarried on 14th January 2011, to one
Miss.Aarti, a Hindu by religion. Meanwhile Mrs. Saundarya on 5th June 2011 filed an
application for condonation of delay for filing appeal against the decree of family court
granting ex-parte decree to the husband before the High court of BigRashtra, stating therein
the reasons for delay as non-awareness of the proceeding. She have categorically established
before the court that she have never stayed up on the address mentioned in the cause title and
nor converted to any religion. The High court condoned the delay and heard appeal of the
appeal of the appellant Mrs.Saundrya. The husband brought it to the High court that, he is
now married with one Miss. Aarti and both are residing with each other and categorically
denied all the allegation of wife. The High court in appeal held that the wife is not converted
to any religion and there exist no ground for granting divorce and has allowed the appeal filed
by wife, by setting aside the ex-parte decree.

The present petition is filed before the Supreme Court of Gondia, to obtain a special leave to
appeal by the second wife Mrs. Aarti , by making Mrs. sundry {the appellant in High
Court}as Respondent no 1 and the Husband as respondent no 2 alleging that the High Court
could not have allowed the petition without making her parte. She further alleges that, since
her right was involved in the matter, the judgment given by the High Court in appeal; without
making her party , is not binding to her and therefore filed the present a SLP against the order
of High Court praying for setting aside the order of High Court and conforming the decree of
family court she alleges that at the time of her marriage the husband was a lawfully divorced
person and therefore marrying with him is lawfull as per Hindu Marriage Act and marriage as
per the Act does not comes to an end except otherwise than a petition filed by any of the parte
to the marriage. And therefore the High Court while allowing appeal has lost the sight on the
important aspect and therefore the present petition. The Respondent No. 1 prays for dismissal
of SLP claiming that since her marriage is intact, the petitioner has no right to interfere
matrimonial proceeding and the marriage with her is null and void. The Respondent No. 2
supports the case of petitioner. The Supreme Court of Gondia has admitted the present appeal
and have framed the following issues in order to final hearing of present appeal.
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the Petitioner has locus standi to file the present petition?

2. Whether setting aside of divorce by the High Court particularly in the case of
husband marrying second time is proper?

3. Whether the marriage of petitioner will survive. If no, what about the status of
petitioner. If yes, what about the right of first wife?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI TO FILE THE PRESENT

PETITION?

Yes the petitioner has the locus standi to file the writ petition in the instant case. In the instant
case grave injustice has been done to the petitioner by not making her a party to the suit
before the High Court when her rights are also affected. So the petitioner has the right to
approach the court Art. 136 of the Constitution on India.

2. WHETHER SETTING ASIDE OF DIVORCE BY THE HIGH COURT

PARTICULARLY IN THE CASE OF HUSBAND MARRYING SECOND TIME IS
PROPER?

Setting aside of divorce by the High Court particularly in the case of husband marrying
second time is not proper. In the instant case, the petitioner married second respondent after
he got divorced. And therefore all the conditions of clause 5 are satisfied at the time of
marriage. And so the marriage between the petitioner and 2nd respondent is valid in the eyes
of law.

3. WHETHER THE MARRIAGE OF PETITIONER WILL SURVIVE. IF NO, WHAT

ABOUT THE STATUS OF PETITIONER. IF YES, WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHT OF
FIRST WIFE?

Marriage of the first petitioner will survive because at the time of her marriage, the second
respondent had no legally wedded wife.As per section 28 (4) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of ninty days from the date
of the decree or order. In the instant case also the second marriage contracted by the husband
could not be said to be void since no appeal had been filed within the period allowed for
filing an appeal and the application for setting aside the ex parte decree filed after the
marriage had already been contracted could not be put on higher footing than that of an
appeal if there was no bar on the date the second marriage was contracted
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI TO FILE THE

PRESENT PETITION?

Yes the petitioner has the locus standi to file the writ petition in the instant case.

The term ‘locus standi’ is a latin term, the general meaning of which is ‘place of standing’.
The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, defines the term ‘locus standi’ as the right or
capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court.1

In the instant case the petition has been filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
The Supreme Court has characterised its power under Art. 136 as an untrammelled reservoir
of power incapable of being confined to definitional bounds; the discretion conferred on the
Supreme Court being subjected only to one limitation, that is, the wisdom and good sense of
justice of the judges.

The Supreme Court has described the nature of its power under Article 136 as follows: “The
exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Art.136 of the Constitution on this court is discretionary.
It is an exceptional power to be exercised sparingly, with caution and care and to remedy
extraordinary situations occasioning gross failure of justice; on the other hand, it is an
overriding power where under the court may generously step into impart justice and remedy
injustice.”

In the instant case grave injustice has been done to the petitioner by not making her a party to
the suit before the High Court when her rights are also affected. So the petitioner has the right
to approach the court Art. 136 of the Constitution on India.

In the case of Pritam Singh v. The State2 , the Supreme Court has emphasised that the only
uniform standard which in our opinion can be laid down in the circumstances is that court
should grant special leave to appeal in those cases where special circumstances are shown to
exist.

1
10th Edn., at page 834
2
AIR 1950 SC 169
Despite earlier pronouncements that the jurisdiction under Art.136 should be utilized for
determining only substantial questions of law and not for redeeming justice in individual
cases, the power has been utilized increasingly to determine individual controversies because
when a case has failed to receive the needed care, attention and approach and the conscience
of this court pricks it or its heart bleeds for imparting justice or undoing injustice. So in the
instant case petition under Art.136 is essential for doing justice to the petitioner.

A special leave petition can be filed under Article 136 by a person who is a party to the
decision against which the appeal is sought to be filed. But a person who is not a party to the
case, but is adversely affected thereby may also file the special leave petition. It is within the
Court’s discretion to grant leave to appeal to anyone. The Supreme Court has itself clarified
the position in this respect in Arunacahalam v. P.S.R Setharathnam3 , that the exercise of the
power of the Supreme Court is not circumscribed by any limitation as to who may invoke it.

Considering the above decision, the second wife, though not a party in the High Court, can
file the Special Leave Petition under Art.136 of the Constitution of India as her rights are
adversely affected.

The Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir4 has held that
it is not the policy of this court to entertain special petitions and grant leave under Article 136
of the Constitution save in those cases where some substantial question of law of general or
public importance is involved or there is manifest injustice resulting from the impugned order
or judgement.

It is clear from therefore mentioned case law that the Court should be liberal in allowing any
third party, having bonafide connection with the matter, to maintain the appeal with a view to
advance substantial justice. However, this power of allowing a third party to maintain an
appeal should be exercised with due care and caution. Persons, unconnected with the matter
under consideration or having personal grievance against the accused should be checked. A
strict vigilance is required to be maintained in this regard.5

Here in the instant case manifest injustice has been caused to the petitioner by not making her
a party to the suit before High Court and the High Court setting aside the divorce granted by

3
AIR 1979 SC 1284
4
(2008) 13 SCC 17
5
Amanullah And Anr V..State Of Bihar And Ors. 2016 ALLSCR (CRI)763:(2016) 6 SCC 699
District Court. And therefore it is humbly submitted that the petitioner has locus standi to file
the writ petition
2. WHETHER SETTING ASIDE OF DIVORCE BY THE HIGH COURT
PARTICULARLY IN THE CASE OF HUSBAND MARRYING SECOND TIME IS
PROPER?

Setting aside of divorce by the High Court particularly in the case of husband marrying
second time is not proper.

As per section 5 of Hindu marriage Act a marriage may be solemnized between any two
Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:(i) neither party has a spouse living
at the time of the marriage;(ii) at the time of the marriage, neither party,-(a) is incapable of
giving a valid consent of it in consequence of unsoundness of mind; or(b) though
capable of giving a valid consent has been suffering from mental disorder of such a
kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children;
or(c) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity or epilepsy;(iii) the bridegroom has
completed the age of twenty one years and the bride the age of eighteen years at the time of
the marriage;(iv) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship unless
the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two;(v) the
parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage governing each of
them permits of a marriage between the two;

In the instant case, the petitioner married second respondent after he got divorced. And
therefore all the conditions of clause 5 are satisfied at the time of marriage. And so the
marriage between the petitioner and 2nd respondent is valid in the eyes of law.

In Ganga Bhai v. Rambabu6 it was held that in accordance with the section 15 of HMA, the
divorced person has a right of remarriage if time for appealing has expired without an appeal
having been presented. In the above mentioned case, time for filing appeal was expired.
Although, the appeal was filed before remarriage, but it is a fact that time for filing appeal
was expired. Hence, a right had accrued in favour of the respondent of remarriage in
accordance with the provisions of section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In this view of the
matter, no relief can be granted to the appellant in regard to setting aside the decree of
divorce. It was pleaded by the learned counsel for the appellant that the delay in filing this
appeal has been condoned by this Court, hence, it could not be said that the respondent has a
right to remarry. But the bench held, in our opinion, section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act

6
2014 decision
specifically mentions the fact that after lapse of period of limitation, divorced person had a
right to remarry. Hence, in these circumstances, right of the respondent would not be affected
even though delay in filing the appeal was condoned by this Court.

In the instant case also, similar situation exist. Therefore going by the above judgement the
right of the petitioner would not be affected even though delay in filing the appeal was
condoned by High Court.

Under section 297 of the Limitation Act section 58 of the said Act which gives power to the
Court to condone the delay, has no application to the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage
Act. The Hindu Marriage Act by itself does not give any power to the Court to condone the
delay in making any such application. Normally, if an application under Order 9, Rule 139
was contemplated by the Hindu Marriage Act power to condone the delay in making such
application would have been conferred upon the Court by the Act itself. There are several
statutes which provide for period of limitation and also provide for power to the Court or to
the Authority for condoning the delay. The fact that no such power has been conferred argues
7
Section 29(2) in The Limitation Act, 1963- (2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or
application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of
section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of
determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law,
the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which,
they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law.
8
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963- 5 Extension of prescribed period in certain cases. —Any appeal or any
application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the
court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.
Explanation.— The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of
the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning
of this section.
9

13. Setting aside decree ex parte against defendant.- In any case in which a decree is passed ex parte
against a defendant, he may apply to the court by which the decree was passed for an Order to set it
aside; and if he satisfies the court that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by
any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the court shall make an
Order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into court or
otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit:

Provided that where the decree is of such a nature that it cannot be set aside as against such defendant
only it may be sent aside as against all or any of the other defendant also:

Provided further that no court shall set aside a decree passed ex parte merely on the ground that there
has been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the
date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff’s claim
for the proposition that no such application for setting aside the ex parte decree is
contemplated by the Hindu Marriage Act at all.10

Nothing in the Limitation Act can apply to the petition for divorce filed under the Hindu
Marriage Act. Neither the provision for limitation contained in section 3 nor the one for
condonation of delay contained in section 5 of the said Act will, therefore, apply to an appeal
under this Hindu Marriage Act. But so far as limitation for appeal is concerned, section
28(4)11 of the Hindu Marriage Act itself provides for a period of limitation for the appeal; this
provision more or less corresponds with section 3 of the Limitation Act; but there is no
provision corresponding to section 5 of the Limitation Act to be found in the Hindu Marriage
Act.

There is no provision under the Hindu Marriage Act corresponding to Order 9, Rule 13 of
the Civil Procedure Code enabling the Court to set aside an ex parte decree upon the
application made by the aggrieved party. But assuming that such a provision can be called out
by virtue of the provision of section 21 of the Act, still the question would be as to what
would be the period of limitation for the same. But argument can be legitimately advanced
that Article 123, which is the relevant article will not apply because the entire Limitation Act
itself is made inapplicable. But even assuming that Article 123 of the Limitation Act applies
to such provisions, the fact remains that section 5 of the Limitation Act is specifically
excluded from the operation of the Hindu Marriage Act. The question, therefore, arises as to
whether an application made by the defendant against whom an ex parte decree for divorce is
passed can make an application to the Court for condonation of delay in filing the application
for setting aside the ex parte decree. The argument is that the defendant cannot do so unless
he or she relies upon the provision of section 5 of the Limitation Act and provisions of this
section are specifically taken out of the purview of the Hindu Marriage Act by said section
29(3) of the Limitation Act.

Hence it is humbly submitted that the setting aside of divorce by the High Court particularly
in the case of husband marrying second time is not proper.

10
Prabhu Premlata Gurpur Vs. Prabhu Subraya Gurpur1984(2)BomCR686
11
Section 28 (4) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a 60 [period of ninety days] from the
date of the decree or order.]
3. WHETHER THE MARRIAGE OF PETITIONER WILL SURVIVE. IF NO,
WHAT ABOUT THE STATUS OF PETITIONER. IF YES, WHAT ABOUT THE
RIGHT OF FIRST WIFE?

Marriage of the first petitioner will survive because at the time of her marriage, the second
respondent had no legally wedded wife.

As per section 15 of Hindu Marriage Act a divorced persons can remarry when a marriage
has been dissolved by a decree of divorce and either there is no right of appeal against the
decree or, if there is such a right of appeal, the time for appealing has expired
without an appeal having been presented, or an appeal has been presented but has been
dismissed, it shall be lawful for either party to the marriage to marry again.

As per section 28 (4) of the Hindu Marriage Act, every appeal under this section shall be
preferred within a period of ninty days from the date of the decree or order.

In the instant case the appeal was preferred after 90 days, and therefore it cannot be allowed.
And so there is no justification in setting aside the decree of divorce with the first wife.

Apex Court in the case of Lata Kamat v. Vilas12, had made it clear that once the limitation for
filing appeal against a decree of divorce expires, the parties could remarry under section 15 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and that such re-marriage contracted after the expiry of the
period of limitation would be a valid marriage in the eyes of law.

In the instant case the time for appealing has already expired and it was only after that period
that the second respondent got married to petitioner. Therefore the marriage of petitioner will
survive.

In S. P. Shrivastava's case13, an ex parte decree for divorce was passed on 2-6-1973. The wife
made an application under Rule 13 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting
aside the ex parte decree alleging that she came to know about the ex parte decree only on 15-
4-1976. Temporary injunction restraining the husband from contracting a second marriage
was served on the husband two days after he contracted second marriage with another girl on
16-4-1976. The ex parte decree was set aside by the trial Court. The husband, therefore, filed
a revision. It was argued that there was no power under Section 15 of the Act, if there was no

12
AIR 1989 SC 1477
13
AIR 1980 All 336
right of appeal and also when the period has expired and the appeal was not filed. The learned
single Judge held that the second marriage contracted by the husband could not be said to be
void since no appeal had been filed within the period allowed for filing an appeal and the
application for setting aside the ex parte decree filed after the marriage had already been
contracted could not be put on higher footing than that of an appeal if there was no bar on the
date the second marriage was contracted. That marriage cannot be struck down. Relying on
Smt. Lila Gupta v. Laxmi Narain,14 the learned Judge held that even if there was a bar, the
marriage would not be void.

In the instant case also the second marriage contracted by the husband could not be said to be
void since no appeal had been filed within the period allowed for filing an appeal and the
application for setting aside the ex parte decree filed after the marriage had already been
contracted could not be put on higher footing than that of an appeal if there was no bar on the
date the second marriage was contracted.

In the opinion of the author Shri S. V. Guptc on Hindu Law (Vol. II 3rd Edition) at para 178
(page 806) under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned author writes that
Section 15 only provides for the time for filing an appeal as a period during which remarriage
is prohibited. It does not provide for the case of an application for setting aside an ex parte
decree for dissolution which would be competent under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Therefore, a remarriage even during the pendency of such an application would be valid
unless the applicant has obtained an interim order of injunction and on such remarriage the
application would be fruitless.

When a marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce and either there is no right of
appeal against the decree, or if there is such a right of appeal, the time for appealing has
expired without an appeal having been presented, or an appeal has been presented but has
been dismissed, it shall be lawful for either party to the marriage to marry again.'15

From the decision in Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey,16 Chandra Mohini Srivastava
v. Avinash Prasad Srivastava and Anr.17, and Tejinder Kaur v. Gurmit Singh,18 to contend
that in view of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the husband had a duty cast upon him

14
AIR 1978 SC 1351
15
S.K. Bose Vs. Premi Bose I(1992)DMC506
16
[2002]1SCR50
17
AIR 1967 SC 581
18
[1988]2SCR1098
to enquire before contracting second marriage whether an appeal has been preferred after the
proviso is deleted. He has also relied on a decision in Prakash Chandra Sharma v. Vimlesh.19

In the instant case the husband has fulfilled the above said duty too. At the time of his second
marriage, no appeal has been preferred by his first wife against the decree of divorce.

Hence it is humbly submitted that the marriage of the first petitioner will survive because at
the time of her marriage, the second respondent had no legally wedded wife.

19
1995 Supp. 4 SCC 642.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it
is most humbly and respectfully requested that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to adjudge and
declare that:

1. The Petitioner has locus standi to file the present petition.

2. The setting aside of divorce by the High Court particularly in the case of husband
marrying second time is not proper.

3. The marriage of petitioner will survive.

AND/OR

And pass any other order which this Hon’ble court deems fit in the interest of justice, equity
and good conscience. And for this, the Petitioner as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER