VINOD PRASAD, J. This habeas corpus Petition has been filed by Manoj Kumar Gupta son of Sri Vijay Kumar Gupta, Resident of Village and Post Haldi, P. S. Haldi, District Ballia, presently residing at Malli Bazar, Police Station Malli Bazar, District Namachi, South Sikkirn seeking the following reliefs: " (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus directing respondent authority to produce the respondent No. 6 Smt. Asha Gupta in Court and said the respondent No. 6 of liberty forthwith. (b) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (c) Award the cost of the petition. " 2. The petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) for summoning of respondent No. 6, which he had already deposited vide original tender receipt dated 25-9-2006. On 26- 7-2006 this Court had issued notices to respondent No. 5 who has appeared in the Court and has filed a counter-affidavit through Sri Sudhir Kumar Singh, Advocate on his behalf as well on behalf of respondent No. 6. 3. The averments, which have been made in this habeas corpus petition, are that Smt. Asha Gupta, respondent No. 6 (wrongly described as respondent No. 7) is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner Manoj Kumar Gupta and their marriage was solemnized on 5-5-2005 according to Hindu customs and rights at Malli Bazar South Sikkim. Smt. Asha Gupta, respondent No. 6 after the marriage went alongwith the petitioner and started living with him as his wife with full pleasure and love. Father of Smt. Asha Gupta, namely, Ashok Kumar Gupta, respondent No. 5 brought back Smt. Asha Gupta, respondent No. 6 to his house at Ballia on the pretext of her serious illness. The petitioner approached Ashok Kumar Gupta many times to send Smt. Asha Gupta but respondent No. 5 all the times made excuses and did not send her. On 11-6-2006 Vijay Kumar Gupta, father of the petitioner alongwith other respectable persons requested respondent No. 5 Ashok Kumar Gupta to send Asha Gupta to her husband on which a condition was put forth by Ashok Kumar Gupta respondent No. 5 that if he (Vijay Kumar Gupta) deposits Rs. On 11-6-2006 Vijay Kumar Gupta, father of the petitioner alongwith other respectable persons requested respondent No. 5 Ashok Kumar Gupta to send Asha Gupta to her husband on which a condition was put forth by Ashok Kumar Gupta respondent No. 5 that if he (Vijay Kumar Gupta) deposits Rs. ten lacs in the name of his daughter Smt. Asha Gupta and transfer some portion of his land in her name only then she will be sent. It is further averred in the petition that the petitioner are four brothers and he is the eldest amongst them and therefore, the land cannot be transferred in the name of Smt. Asha Gupta. It is also averred that Ashok Kumar Gupta respondent No. 5 is pressurizing the petitioner to come and live at Ballia but that is not possible as the petitioners birth and all educational had taken place in Sikkim and only there he can arrange for a job for him as he is an en-employed youth. He will face great hardship in residing at Ballia as he is not accustomed to social and cultural life of Ballia. The further averment is that petitioner had a very sweet relation with respondent No. 6 and from their marital relationship, Smt. Asha Gupta had become pregnant also. The further averment of the petitioner is that Smt. Asha Gupta is ready to go with the petitioner to live with him in Malli Bazar, South Sikkim but her father Ashok Kumar Gupta is an impediment in such an effort. It is further mentioned that respondent No. 5 is pressurizing respondent No. 6 to get aborted and in that event the petitioner will loose the first child. When all the efforts made by the petitioner proved futile to bring back his wife, he approached District Authorities at Ballia for resolving the matter and had also sent letters and representations to the District Magistrate, and Superintendent of Police Ballia on 26-6-2006 (Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 ). The District Administration did not help the petitioner. It is further averred that respondent No. 5 has no right to restrain and detain illegally his wife Smt. Asha Gupta respondent No. 6 and respondent No. 5 is acting illegally and unconstitutionally. The petitioner has averred that the rights guaranteed to him and to his wife under the Constitution are being infringed and curtailed by respondent No. 5. It is further averred that respondent No. 5 has no right to restrain and detain illegally his wife Smt. Asha Gupta respondent No. 6 and respondent No. 5 is acting illegally and unconstitutionally. The petitioner has averred that the rights guaranteed to him and to his wife under the Constitution are being infringed and curtailed by respondent No. 5. He had further averred that respondent authorities are also acting illegally, arbitrarily and mala fidely. Since the petitioner did not have any other alternative remedy he filed the present habeas corpus petition in this Court. 4. Ashok Kumar Gupta respondent No. 5 had filed a counter-affidavit on his behalf as well as on behalf of respondent No. 6 Smt. Asha Gupta, his daughter wherein he has stated that the petitioner is an accused in Crime No. 6/2006, under Sections 494, 495, 498 I. P. C. , Police Station Kotwali, District Ballia as at the time of marriage with respondent No. 6 the petitioner was already married to one lady Teena Gurang daughter of Padam Bahadur Gurang, resident of Dara Gaon, Post Tadang Bazar, District Gangtok, East Sikkim. He has further alleged that in the marriage he has given dowry of Rs. One lac. He had filed copy of the F. I. R. of Crime No. 6/2006 of Police Station Kotwali, District Ballia as Annexure No. 1. He had also filed the marriage certificate of the petitioner alongwith Teena Gurang as Annexure No. 2, to the counter-affidavit which indicates that Manoj Kumar Gupta, the petitioner was married with Teena Gurang on 25-2-2005 before Tandra Mittra, Marriage Officer, Village Balakova. Respondent No. 5 also filed the marriage card of the marriage of the petitioner with his daughter as Annexure No. 3, which indicates that the marriage between petitioner and respondent No. 6 was solemnized at Ballia. The said marriage invitation card is from the petitioners side. He had also filed the letter written by respondent No. 6 on 13-6-2005 which indicate that the petitioners family were demanding a dowry of Rs. one lac and respondent No. 6 was also assaulted for the same and she had showed the danger and apprehension to her life. The said letter is Annexure No. 4 to the counter-affidavit. 5. Under the orders of this Court respondent No. 6 Asha Gupta had appeared before this Court on 30- 10-2006 and her statement was recorded in open Court. The said letter is Annexure No. 4 to the counter-affidavit. 5. Under the orders of this Court respondent No. 6 Asha Gupta had appeared before this Court on 30- 10-2006 and her statement was recorded in open Court. In her statement she had clearly stated that she is graduate from S. C. College Ballia. She had married with the petitioner Manoj Kumar Gupta, who is present in Court. At the time of marriage neither her nor her family members were informed that Manoj Kumar Gupta was already married. Her marriage was solemnized on 5-5-2005 at Ballia. Six days after the marriage she came to know that the petitioner was already married. She does not want to live with the petitioner as he was already married. 6. Manoj Kumar Gupta, the petitioner also accepted the fact, on enquiry being made by the Court that he had married with Teena Gurang in the month of February 2006 and the same year in the month of May 2005 he had marriage with respondent No. 6 Smt. Asha Gupta. He had admitted that he had not sought any divorce from Teena Gurang and she had left the marital company of the petitioner and never came back. There is nothing on record to suggest or even to indicate nor there is any pleading that any divorce, customary or otherwise, took place between petitioner Manoj Kumar Gupta and his first wife Teena Gurang. 7. On the facts mentioned above the present habeas corpus petition has been pressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 8. It was contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 6 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and therefore, respondent No. 5 has no right to detain her and she being major is entitled to go and live with any person according to her own wish. He contended that the first wife of the petitioner has left him and therefore, the marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 6 will be a valid marriage. He therefore, contended that respondent No. 6 be directed to join the company of her husband, the petitioner, and go and live with him and this Court should allow the habeas corpus Petition and direct the respondent No. 6 to join the company of the petitioner. 9. He therefore, contended that respondent No. 6 be directed to join the company of her husband, the petitioner, and go and live with him and this Court should allow the habeas corpus Petition and direct the respondent No. 6 to join the company of the petitioner. 9. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 6 was illegal and the petitioner is not the legally wedded husband of respondent No. 6 nor she has been illegally detained by respondent No. 5 who is her father and therefore, the present habeas corpus petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed and suitable compensation be awarded to them. 10. I have considered the submissions raised by both the sides. It is an admitted case of both the sides that both the parties are Hindus and are governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act No. 25 of 1955 ). Section 5 of the said Act lays down conditions for a valid Hindu Marriage. It provides that: 5. Conditions for a Hindu marriage.-A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely: (i) neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage; (ii) at the time of the marriage, neither party - (a) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind; or (b) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children; or (c) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity; (iii) the bridegroom has completed the age of [twenty-on years] and the bride, the age of [eighteen years] at the time of the marriage; (iv) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two; (v) the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two. " 11. Thus from the above mentioned Section it is clear that a marriage between any two Hindus can be solemnized only when the condition mentioned in (i) to (v) of the above section are fulfilled. " 11. Thus from the above mentioned Section it is clear that a marriage between any two Hindus can be solemnized only when the condition mentioned in (i) to (v) of the above section are fulfilled. It is to be reminded that the Hindu marriage is sacrosanct. To be a valid marriage between the two Hindus the conditions laid down in Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act has to be fulfilled which is the sine-qua-non for it. The very first condition (i) provides that neither party has a spouse living at the time of marriage. Since rest of the conditions in this habeas corpus petitions are not relevant and germane to the controversy at hand therefore, I am not referring them in any detail. Admittedly, in this case the petitioner was married to Teena Gurang and he had not sought any divorce from her. She is also not reported to be dead or missing since more that seven years as to presume her lifelessness. Thus the marriage of the petitioner with the said Tina Gurang still subsists. Consequently the marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 6 Smt. Asha Gupta was not valid marriage and was void and illegal. 12. Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act relates with void marriages. It provides that any marriage solemnized after commencement of Hindu Marriage Act shall be null and void for the reasons mentioned thereunder. Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act reads thus: "11. Void marriages.-Any marriage solemnized after the commencement of this Act shall he null and void and may, on a petition presented by either party thereto, [against the other party], he so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes any one of the conditions specified in clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5. " 13. Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for punishment for bigamy. It reads thus: "17. Punishment of bigamy.-Any marriage between two Hindus solemnized after the commencement of this Act is void if at the date of such marriage either party had a husband or wife living; and the provisions of Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code shall apply accordingly. " 14. It reads thus: "17. Punishment of bigamy.-Any marriage between two Hindus solemnized after the commencement of this Act is void if at the date of such marriage either party had a husband or wife living; and the provisions of Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code shall apply accordingly. " 14. Thus, from the above referred to sections when read in conjunction with Section 5 (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, makes it absolutely clear that there cannot be any bigamous marriage under the Hindu Law. A Hindu marriage is a monogamous marriage and bigamy is strictly prohibited and is, in fact, an offence under Section 494, IPC. To be a valid marriage between two Hindus neither of the parties to the marriage should have any living spouse at the time of solemnization of the marriage. Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act lays down the requisite customary rights and ceremonies that are essential for performing a valid Hindu marriage. It provides that the Hindu marriage can be solemnized in accordance with customary rights and ceremonies of either party thereto. Section 7 (2) of Hindu Marriage Act provides that if Saptapadi is one of the rites and ceremonies to the marriage then the marriage become complete and binding when seven steps are taken. It is also provided that under the Hindu law, under Section 5, no marriage cannot be solemnized if the parties are within the prohibited relationship unless and until usages governing each of them permits such marriages. Further the parties are not to be Sapindas of each other unless and until customs and usage governing each of them permits the marriage between Sapindas. It also provides that both the bride and bridegroom should have completed the age of 18 and 21 years and none of them should be insane or incapable of giving valid consent because of mental disorder. 15. Reverting to the present case, in view of Sections 5, 11 and 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act it is abundantly clear that the marriage between the petitioner Manoj Kumar Gupta and Smt. Asha Gupta was null and void because petitioner Manoj Kumar Gupta had a living spouse Teena Gurang to whom he had married just three months prior to the solemnization of marriage with respondent No. 6 Asha Gupta and he had not sought any divorce from her. This was in the breach of condition (i) of Section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act. Once the marriage of Manoj Kumar Gupta, the petitioner, with respondent No. 6 Asha Gupta is null and void, he cannot be considered to be a legally wedded husband of respondent No. 6. A marriage, which is null and void, does not confer any right on any of the spouses as husband and wife. The term null and void means and in essence have got the effect of no marriage at all. The word void literary means state of non-existence. Thus, the marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 6 never existed in the eyes of law. In such a state of affair the petitioner has no right to pray for a writ of habeas corpus from this Court, as he was not the husband of respondent No. 6 at all much less to say a legally wedded husband. In the habeas corpus petition the petitioner has very dexterously concealed this important aspect of the matter in the pleading that he was already married to Teena Gurang three months prior to the solemnization of marriage with respondent No. 6 and that he had not sought any divorce from her. This material concealment of fact goes a long way to show the intention of the petitioner. The petitioner has also concealed the fact of lodging of a case against him as Crime No. 6/2006 registered on 5-1-2006 at Police Station Kotwali, District Ballia. He had filed the habeas corpus Petition on 11-7-2006 after a gap of six months from the filing of F. I. R. The petitioner has further wrongly stated the fact that his marriage was solemnized at Sikkim whereas, in fact, as is clear from Annexure No. 3 to the counter-affidavit, that the marriage was solemnized at Ballia in U. P. on 5th May, 2006. All these facts are material concealment of fact. Moreover respondent No. 6 was tortured for demand of dowry as well which is clear from her letter filed alongwith the counter-affidavit. 16. Respondent No. 6, Smt. Asha Gupta also had admitted in this Court that she not in illegal detention and she has stated in open Court that she does not want to live with the petitioner as he was already married. 16. Respondent No. 6, Smt. Asha Gupta also had admitted in this Court that she not in illegal detention and she has stated in open Court that she does not want to live with the petitioner as he was already married. I have already held that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 6 was no marriage in the eyes of law and was null and void. Since respondent No. 6 Smt. Asha Gupta according to her statement given in Court, was not detained illegally by her father, respondent No. 5 but was living according to her own will with him that the question of issuing of writ of habeas corpus does not arise at all. It is not a case of illegal detention and therefore, the relief claimed in the instant petition by the petitioner cannot be granted to him. As a matter of fact the present habeas corpus petition is not maintainable at the behest of the petitioner Manoj Kumar Gupta who was not the legally wedded husband of respondent No. 6 Smt. Asha Gupta. 17. Now coming to the question of compensation which has been argued by Counsel for the respondent in this case. As has been discussed above the petitioner has made intentional concealment of relevant facts which was not only relevant and germane for deciding the controversy but where absolutely essential to be mentioned. The petitioner has ruined the life of a young girl, at the prime of her youth, in connivance with his parents and his family members. She has been devoid of the marital happiness and the most cherish moments of life which a legally wedded wife desires. By his suppression and concealment of fact he has diminished the joys of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as well as of her family members. Respondent No. 5 who is the father had to suffer huge economic loss worth rupees lacs and the severe ignominy in society. The blemish, which has been implanted on the girl and her family is unredeemable. Such an act cannot be easily excused and the family who has been disgraced and the lady respondent No. 6 Asha Gupta who has been subjected to unimaginable agony must be suitably compensated. In this view of the matter, I direct that the petitioner and his father will pay a compensation of Rs. 3 lacs to respondent Nos. Such an act cannot be easily excused and the family who has been disgraced and the lady respondent No. 6 Asha Gupta who has been subjected to unimaginable agony must be suitably compensated. In this view of the matter, I direct that the petitioner and his father will pay a compensation of Rs. 3 lacs to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 over and above Rs. 5,000/-, which has been deposited by the petitioner in this Court for summoning respondent No. 6. The said compensation amount is to be paid by the petitioner and his father within a period of one month from today through C. J. M. Ballia. If the petitioner and his father fails to pay the said compensation to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 within the stipulated period then C. J. M. Ballia is directed to realize the said compensation as arrears of land revenue from the estate, movable and immovable property, of the petitioner Manoj Kumar Gupta and his father. 18. Summing up this habeas corpus petition is not maintainable and is dismissed with cost mentioned above. Let a copy of this order be sent to CJM, Ballia for his intimation and action. Petition dismissed. .