It was held in Kedar Nath v. Smt. Suparva, AIR 1963 Pat. 311, that the first wife Â cannot present a petition under s. 11 for a declaration of nullity of A’s marriage with C. The proposal was intended to supersede the decision. It was opposed by the Law Commission and has been dropped. So under the Amended section also strangers cannot seek relief under the Act. They may seek relief under the general law.
Scope of Amendment:
The words “against the other party” have been inserted by the amendment of 1976. Under the old section it was held that a proceeding under s. 11 could be brought by one party to the marriage even after the demise of the other party. Lakshmamma v. Thayamma, AIR 1974 AP 225; Nagavva vs. Parvathavva, AIR 1974 Kant. 8, Contra: Gowri Ammal v. Thulsai Ammal, AIR 1962 Mad. 510. The effect of the amendment is to supersede such decision.
Suppose A marries Â and then takes a second wife C. The second marriage is void. A begets a son on Ñ and dies. Under the decisions mentioned above Ñ could sue even after A’s death for a declaration of nullity of her marriage with A. Such a declaration was necessary to enable the child to succeed as a legitimate child under s. 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Now after the 1976 amendment, Ñ cannot sue for the declaration of nullity after A’s death. But this does not affect the claim of her son to succeed as a legitimate child under s. 16, for s. 16 itself has been suitably amendea by the Amending Act of 1976.