Case Title: Swapnanjali Sandeep Patil v. Sandeep Ananda Patil

According to Section 24 of the Special Marriage Act, there is no time limit set forth for presenting a petition for a declaration that a marriage is null and void. This was noted by the Supreme Court. The bench noted that once a marriage is pronounced void, it becomes null and void, and such proclamation can be made at any point in time.

In this instance, the "wife" sought a declaration of nullity from the district court in Pune pursuant to Section 25 of the Special Marriage Act of 1954 on the grounds that her "husband" had married her without first obtaining a divorce decree (in previous marriage) from the appropriate court, that he was still married at the time of their marriage, and that he had concealed the existence of his prior marriage from her.

As stated in Section 25 of the Special Marriage Act of 1954, the Trial Court rejected her claim, noting that it did not provide a reason for the nullity of the marriage. The bench referred to Section 25 of the Act, which states that "the period of limitation is one year after the coercion had ceased or, as the case may be, the fraud had been discovered or the petitioner had with his or her free consent lived with the other party to the marriage as husband and wife after the coercion had ceased or, as the case may be, the fraud had been discovered," in order to hold that the application had passed the statute of limitations. She went to the Apex Court after the Bombay High Court rejected her appeal and upheld the Trial court's judgement.

When granting her appeal, the court stated that Section 4 of the Act allows any two people to get married under the Special Marriage Act if neither of them had a spouse who is still alive at the time of the solemnisation of marriage. The court further noted that under Section 24 of the Act, there is no time limit for presenting a petition for a declaration that a marriage is null or invalid. It further stated that it was incorrectly noted by both the trial court and the High Court that the marriage petition was time-barred.

The learned trial court and the High Court made a major error by concluding that the respondent-husband and his first wife had a conventional divorce when no such fact had been stated. A specific question must be raised by the court regarding the aforementioned, and it must be established and supported by the strongest evidence possible.

The Apex Court was of the opinion that, without substantial proof of previous divorce, it can be said that the respondent had a spouse who was still alive at the time of the appellant and respondent's marriage. As a result, under Section 24 read in conjunction with Section 4 of the Act, the marriage between the appellant and respondent was null and void, and the appellant was therefore entitled to a decree of nullity at her request. Therefore, by dismissing the said petition, both the Lower Courts had erred significantly.