Deoki Nandan, J. - (1.) This second appeal had been heard by me at an earlier stage and I had referred the following question for consideration by a larger Bench, for the reasons contained in my order dated 27th September, 1979, namely - QUESTION "Whether the marriage between the plaintiff and Suresh Ghandra could be adjudged null and void in the present suit, although it had not been declared to be so by a decree of nullity, on a petition presented by either party thereto against the other, under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. on the ground that Suresh Chandra had a wife living in the person of Chandra Kala when the marriage between the parties in question was solemnised in the year 1958, after the coming into force of the Act, tor contravening the rule of monogamy prescribed by Section 5 (i) thereof,"
(2.) The Hon'ble the Chief Justice did not, however, consider the case to be a fit one to need the attention of a Division Bench and has referred the matter back to me for being disposed of in accordance with law, by his order dated 24th September, 1980.
(3.) In my referring order dated the 27th September, 1979, I had expressed the view that on the facts and in the cir cumstances of the case, the marriage in question cannot be adjudged to be null and void in the present suit, that it was a fact which subsisted without any objec tion; and that one must proceed on the assumption that the plaintiff-respondent was the wile of Suresh Chandra deceased, and his widow after his death, for all purposes.;