Indore (Madhya Pradesh): The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a woman challenging an order that restrained her from representing herself as the wife of a man who is already legally married.
The court held that any marriage performed by the two during the subsistence of the man’s first marriage was void in the eyes of the law.
Justice Alok Awasthi passed the order while hearing a petition filed by Maya Dhakad, who had questioned the October 14, 2025 verdict of the District Judge, Indore.
The appellate court had earlier granted an injunction in favour of the respondent, Bharat Dhakad, reversing a trial court order that had rejected his plea.
According to the case details, the petitioner came into contact with the respondent through social media in 2016. She alleged that he presented himself as a widower with one son and, based on this representation, performed a marriage ceremony with her at a temple in May 2016. Later, she discovered that the respondent was already married to Smt. Rekha Dhakad and living with his first wife.
The woman also submitted before the court that the respondent and his family had emotionally manipulated her, including executing a “Daan Patra” and an affidavit purportedly given by his first wife in 2018, indicating no objection to the alleged second relationship. She further stated that several criminal and civil cases, including a case under Section 376 of the IPC, were pending between them.
However, the High Court observed that the respondent’s subsisting first marriage made any second marriage void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. “Even assuming that a ceremony took place on May 29, 2016, such ceremony cannot confer upon the petitioner the legal status of a wife,” the court held.
Justice Awasthi stated that documents such as the so-called Daan Patra or an affidavit by the first wife could not override statutory law or validate a marriage that is void from the outset. The court also noted that the petitioner had “no prima facie right” to represent herself as the legally wedded wife of the respondent.
The High Court found no fault in the District Judge’s order restraining the petitioner from using the respondent’s name as her spouse or projecting herself as his wife, stating that the injunction was legal, proper, and justified.
With this, the High Court affirmed the District Judge’s October 14 order and dismissed the petition, holding that no interference was warranted.
