The Karnataka High Court has upheld a trial court's decision refusing to implead a woman as the legal representative of a deceased defendant in a partition suit after finding that her marriage, claimed to have been solemnized under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, was void because the man's first marriage was still in existence.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum ruled that a marriage performed under the Special Marriage Act cannot be treated as valid if either party already has a living spouse. While dismissing the writ petition, the Court clarified that the daughter born from the relationship would continue to remain on record in the suit as permitted by the trial court.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a partition suit pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ballari. During the pendency of the proceedings, one of the defendants passed away on 14 March 2024.
The petitioner approached the trial court claiming that she was the deceased's wife and sought to be brought on record along with her daughter as his legal representatives. She relied on a marriage certificate stating that the marriage had been solemnized under the Special Marriage Act in April 2008.
The trial court initially allowed the request, but the order was later set aside by the High Court, which directed a fresh inquiry into the applicants' legal status. After conducting that inquiry, the trial court concluded that the petitioner's marriage was void because the deceased's first marriage was still subsisting. However, it allowed the daughter to be impleaded. The petitioner challenged that decision before the High Court.
Court's Observations
Justice Magadum examined Section 4(a) of the Special Marriage Act, which requires that neither party should have a living spouse at the time of marriage. The Court observed that this condition is mandatory and leaves no room for exceptions.
The Court also noted that the petitioner herself had admitted in her affidavit that she was the deceased's second wife and acknowledged the existence of the first wife.
Referring to this admission, the bench observed,
"Once these foundational facts stand admitted, the inevitable consequence is that the alleged marriage... was in direct violation of Section 4(a) of the Act."
The Court further explained that once parties choose to marry under the Special Marriage Act, they are governed entirely by its statutory provisions. Personal law permitting multiple marriages cannot override the mandatory conditions laid down in the Act.
"The statutory requirement that neither party should have a spouse living cannot be diluted by resorting to personal law," the Court said while explaining that the Special Marriage Act is a self-contained legal code governing marriages solemnized under it.
Why the Petitioner Could Not Be Impleaded
The High Court held that a person seeking to represent the estate of a deceased litigant must establish a legally recognised right to do so.
Since the petitioner's marriage was found to be void under the Special Marriage Act, she could not claim the legal status of a widow. Therefore, she was not entitled to be impleaded as the deceased's legal representative in the partition proceedings.
At the same time, the Court agreed with the trial court's distinction regarding the daughter born from the relationship, observing that children born from a void marriage are entitled to statutory protection and may represent their legal rights in appropriate proceedings.
Court's Decision
Finding no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the trial court's order, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition.
The Court affirmed the order rejecting the petitioner's impleadment while allowing the daughter to remain on record and directed the trial court to continue the partition suit in accordance with law.
Case Details
Case Title: K. M. v. M. A. B. & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 107250 of 2025 (GM-CPC)
Judge: Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum
Decision Date: 15 July 2026
