JUDGMENT R. N. Sahay. J. This is an appeal under section 384 or the Indian Succession Act 1926 from toe order or Subordinate Judge-I Palamu dated 7.8.1992 whereby the application filed by the appellant under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of succession certificate in respect of debts and securities of late Ram Pati Devi wire of the appellant has been dismissed. 2. The appellant, in his petition impleaded Ram Kali Devi (sister of the deceased). Rambudhi Ram nephew of the deceased and the Branch Manager, State Bank of India. 3. The deceased was second wife of the appellant, late Ram Pati Devi was employed as teacher in the State Primary Girls School at Haldarnagar district of Palamau. She had deposited substantial amount in her general Provident fund bearing account no. 4328 She had also opened Saving bank account bearing A/C no 522 in the State Bank of India at Haidarnagar Branch She retired from service on 30.4.1987 and was living with the appellant. She died on 23.6.1989 due to certain ailments. The appellant performed her last rites according to the Hindu custom. The appellant claimed by virtue of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, be the only heir and legal representative of the deceased Rampati Devi. The appellant is thus entitled to get money deposited by Rampati Devi which is fully detailed in the schedule of the plaint. 4, Respondents no. 1 and 2 in their written statement stated that deceased Rampati Devi was not married with the appellant. She lived at her Naihar in village Bansdih. The appellant, therefore, is not entitled to get succession certificate. In her service book Rampati Devi (deceased) had given her address of her Naihar. She had deposited some amount in her name at Heidarnagar State Bank of India and in the ledger she had given the name of her sister Ramkali Devi and nephew Rambudbi Ram i.e. respondent nos. 1 and 2 As such the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to receive the money. In the Provident Fund Account Ramapati Devi (deceased) had nominated hell sister Ramkali Devi and nephew Rambudhi Ram In this way. the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are alone entitled for the amounts in the G.P. Fund and State Bank. 5. 1 and 2 As such the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to receive the money. In the Provident Fund Account Ramapati Devi (deceased) had nominated hell sister Ramkali Devi and nephew Rambudhi Ram In this way. the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are alone entitled for the amounts in the G.P. Fund and State Bank. 5. The learned Subordinate Judge I (District Deligate) Palamu has considered the oral and documentary evident and has given finding that Rampati Devi was married wife of the appellant. The Subordinate Judge, however, held that the appellant's marriage with Rampati Devi was void because the first wife of the appellant namely Jaimurti Devi who was alive at the time of marriage. The deceased in her; service book and in G.P.F. account and even in Bank account made the respondents as nominees to receive the amount deposited by her after her death. Hence the appellant was not entitled to get succession certificate. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the District Deligate has no jurisdiction to pronounce upon the validity of the marriage as only a court under the Hindu Marriage Act or a civil court has jurisdiction to pronounce upon validity of the marriage. 7. In smt. Sheet wati Vs. Smt Ram Nandani (A.I.R, 1981 Allahabad 42), the Deoki Nandan, J, of the Allahabad High Court held "A marriage though null and void for contravening any of the conditions prescribed by clauses (i), (iv) and (v) or section 5 has yet to be regarded as a subsisting fact and it cannot be said to be wholly nonest in law, or a nullity so long as it is not declared to be null and void by a decree of nullity of the District Court on a petition presented by either party thereto against the other party to the marriage. No third person can treat the marriage to be void or have it adjudicated to be null and void in any other suit or proceeding unless it has already been declared to be so by a decree of nullity or a District Court in accordance with the procedure prescribed by and under the Act : the only exception being the case where the aggrieved spouse of the first marriage on account of whose being alive the second marriage is void prosecutes the other spouse for being punished for begamy under section 406 or 495 of I.P.C. read with section 17 of the Act or the case where the aggrieved spouse prosecutes the guilty spouse for a contravention of clauses (iv) and (v) of section 5 under section 18 (b) "In Paraamasami V. sornathammal A.I.R. 1969 Mad 124), Alagiriswami, J of the Madras High Court has observed under the ordinary law of contract if the contract is void, it could be so treated and any other remedy sought without having to set aside that contract But In respect of marriages even when the marriage is null and void it cannot be so held at the instance of third parties, a declaration of nullity can be asked for only by either party to the marriage and in any case after the death of one of the parties nobody can question the validity of the marriage. Nor can any relief be asked for on the basis that the marriage does not subsist so resort to a court is necessary to declare a marriage null and void and no relief can he claimed without asking for such a declaration." 8. In Smt. Ram Pyari Vs. Sharam Das and ord. (A.I.R. 1984 Allahabad 147) wife of deceased applied for grant of succession certificate in respect of assets of her husband, objections were raised by kith and kins of the deceased that the applicant was not legally married wife of the deceased, K. C. Agrawal J, observed that there is inherent right in every person to bring a suit of a civil nature and unless the suit is barred by statute one may at one's peril bring a suit of one's choice. A suit for its maintainability requires no authority in law. It is now enough no statute debars the suit. A suit for its maintainability requires no authority in law. It is now enough no statute debars the suit. In Ganga Bai V. Vijal Kumar ( AIR 1974 SC 1126 ) It was held that not only the first wife but also anyone who is affected by the marriage performed In contravention of clauses (i) (iv) and (v) of section-5 of Hindu Marriage Act would be entitled to bring the civil suit. In R.V. Algar (1953) 2 All ER 1381, a distinction between a void and void able marriage has been brought about and it has been laid down that a void marriage has no existence in the eye of law. In AIR 1963 Patna it was held that it was clear from the scheme of the Hindu Marriage Act that a party to the marriage in respect of which no decree for nullity could be granted under the Hindu Marriage Act could seek his remedy under the general law. 9. In smt. Yamunabai Anatrao Adhav Vt. Snantrao Shivram Adhov (A.I.R. 1988 S. C, 644, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the marriages covered by Section-11 are void ipso jure, that is void from the very inception. and have to be ignored as not existing in law it all if and when such a question arises. Although the section permits a formal declaration to be made on the presentation of a petition, it is not essential to obtain in advance such a normal declaration from a court in a proceeding specifically commenced for the purpose. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court it must be held the question of validity of the marriage can be gone into in a colateral proceeding and it is not necessary for the party objecting to the marriage to seek a declaration before a Civil Court. 10. The appellant therefore is disentitled for grant of succession certificate because according to the finding his marriage with deceased Rampati Devi was nullity. The Subordinate Judge has held that during her life time the deceased has made respondent nos. 1 and 2 her nominee in G. P. F. A/C and also Bank Account. Section 5 (1) of the Provident Funds Act 1925 provides: "Notwithstanding any thing contained in any law for the time being in force or in any disposition. The Subordinate Judge has held that during her life time the deceased has made respondent nos. 1 and 2 her nominee in G. P. F. A/C and also Bank Account. Section 5 (1) of the Provident Funds Act 1925 provides: "Notwithstanding any thing contained in any law for the time being in force or in any disposition. whether testamentary or other wise by a subscriber to, or depositor in, a Government or Railway provident fund of the sum standing to his credit in the Fond or of any part thereof. where any nomination, duly made in accordance with the rules of the fund purports to confer upon any person the right to receive the whole or any part of such sum on the death of the subscriber or depositor orrurring before the sum has become payable or before the sum, having become payable, has been paid the said person shall, on the death as aforesaid of subscribe or depositor, become entitled to the exclusion of all other persons, to receive such sum or part thereof, as the case may be unless. (a) such nomination is at any time becomes varied by another nomination made in like manner or expressly cancelled by notice given in the manner and to the authority prescribed by those rules or. (b) such nomination at any time becomes invalid by reason of the happening of some contingency specified therein, and if the said person predeceases the subscribe or depositor, the nomination shall so far as it relates to the right conferred upon the said per said become void and of no effect. Provided that where provision has duly made in the nomination in accordance with the rules or the Fund, conferring upon some of he person such right in the stead of the person deceased, such right shall upon the decease as aforesaid of the said person, pass to such other person." 11. The appellant is therefore, not entitled to certificate on this also score. This appeal must fail and dismissed. Appeal dismissed.