JUDGMENT : This revision is directed against the order dated 31-3-2011 passed in Civil Appeal No. 13/2010, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24-11-2010 passed in Succession Case No. 14/2009 by the III Civil Judge, Class-I, Sagar, has been dismissed. 2. Facts giving rise to filing of this revision in brief are that one late Smt. Pushpa Chouksey was employed as Staff Nurse in District Ayurved Hospital, Sagar. She died intestate on 26-4-2008. The petitioner being the younger brother of said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey, filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') for grant of succession certificate so as to claim the service benefits of late Smt. Pushpa Chouksey. It was contended in the application that the marriage of Smt.' Pushpa Chouksey was solemnized with one Omkar Rai on 8-2-1981, but the same was not a successful marriage. Said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey was deserted by her husband and she was living with her father and mother. Ultimately a civil suit was filed by Smt. Pushpa Chouksey for grant of divorce against Omkar Rai in the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Sagar, being Civil Suit No. 123-A/2000. The said suit was decreed on 21-12-2000. The petitioner was living with said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey and the petitioner was nominated in all the service records of said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey as the nominee to receive the service benefits of said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey. Before even the dissolution of marriage of said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey with Omkar Rai, she started living with respondent No. 2, but no marriage was performed. Said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey died on 26-4-2008 in Medical College, Jabalpur on account of gas leakage and, therefore, he was entitled to grant of succession certificate. 3. The official respondent in the said case filed the reply to the effect that said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey has not nominated anyone in the service records, therefore, it is incorrect to say that the petitioner was nominated by said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey as her nominee. It was contended that many applications were made by said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey for recording the names of various persons and even in one of the applications, she has said that she wanted to give some share in the said service benefit to her mother. It was contended that many applications were made by said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey for recording the names of various persons and even in one of the applications, she has said that she wanted to give some share in the said service benefit to her mother. Respondent No. 2 filed a reply to the said application categorically contending that marriage of respondent No. 2 was performed with Smt. Pushpa Chouksey on 15-1-2000 and out of the wedlock, a daughter was born on 16-4-2001. Said daughter had died on 21-4-2008. It was claimed that the petitioner was not entitled to grant of a succession certificate, since accepting the contention of the respondent No. 2, the Additional Collector, Sagar has already granted a succession certificate in favour of respondent No. 2 and some payments have been made to him. It was claimed that a succession certificate was to be granted in favour of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 4 supported the claim of the petitioner. Issues were framed by the learned Succession Court and thereafter recording the evidence, rejecting the application of the petitioner, the succession certificate was granted in favour of respondent No. 2. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 384 of the Act before the Lower Appellate Court, but since the said appeal has been dismissed by the impugned order, this revision is filed. 4. It is vehemently contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court as also by the Succession Court are bad in law as the material evidence, the proof of marriage produced by respondent No. 2 has wrongly been accepted. It is contended that since undisputedly the parties are Hindu, they are governed by the Hindu Law and the Hindu Succession Act. 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'Succession Act') as also the Hindu Marriage Act, 1055 (hereinafter referred to as 'Marriage Act'), are applicable. It is contended that the marriage as alleged by the respondent No. 2 with Smt. Pushpa Chouksey is void ah initio as the marriage was said to be performed on 15-1-2000, though no proof of the same was produced by respondent No. 2, whereas the earlier marriage of said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey was dissolved only on 21-12-2000 by grant of decree of divorce. It is contended that as per the law and the specific provisions made under Section 11 of the Marriage Act, the marriage said to be performed during the lifetime of the previous husband and without the dissolution of previous marriage, was void ab initio. Reading Section 5 of the Marriage Act. it is said that admittedly there was no divorce in between Smt. Pushpa Chouksey and Omkur Rai prior to 21-12-2000 and second marriage performed on 15-1-2000 was null and void. It is also contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner with vehemence that apart from the fact that marriage of Smt. Pushpa Chouksey with respondent No. 2 was void ab initio, in fact, there was no proof of such a marriage as is required under the law. It is contended that the condition of Hindu marriage as prescribed in Section 5 of the Marriage Act and the ceremonies for Hindu marriage as prescribed in Section 7 of the aforesaid Act were neither stated nor proved. A form of marriage with the blessings of the religious Guru is not recognized under the Marriage Act and, therefore, such marriage could not be treated as a valid marriage. On this count also, the succession certificate was not to be granted to respondent No. 2. Taking this Court to the provisions of Succession Act, it is contended that the petitioner was in fact entitled to the succession certificate, being the legal heir of Smt. Pushpa Chouksey as per the general rules of succession in case of female Hindu prescribed under Section 15 of the Succession Act, but this was completely ignored by the Courts below and as such the order passed by the Succession Court as also by the Lower Appellate Court are bad in law and are liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, it is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 that factum of marriage was found proved and findings in this respect have been categorically recorded in Paragraph 15 of the Lower Appellate Court's order. The proof with respect to marriage was produced by the respondent No. 2, such as the birth certificate of the daughter containing the name of respondent No. 2 as father and the name of Smt. Pushpa Chouksey as mother. The proof with respect to marriage was produced by the respondent No. 2, such as the birth certificate of the daughter containing the name of respondent No. 2 as father and the name of Smt. Pushpa Chouksey as mother. Various documents such as the identity card issued by the Government Department indicates that respondent No. 2 was the husband of said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey. The family card issued by the department contains the name of Smt. Pushpa Chouksey after the change of surname after second marriage as 'Sekri', which was duly recorded and therefore, it was duly proved by such documents that said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey was in fact the wife of respondent No. 2. The affidavits have been filed to indicate that the daughter was born out of the said wedlock and, therefore, only the respondent No. 2 being the husband of said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey, was the person to inherit all the properties of said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey as per the Succession Act. Thus, it is contended that if the Courts below have considered the said evidence and have given the definite findings with respect to grant of succession certificate to the respondent No. 2, no wrong was committed. It is submitted that the revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 7. Undisputedly, the first thing is required to be examined whether there was any valid marriage of said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey with respondent No. 2 as per the Marriage Act. The provisions of Marriage Act specifically contemplates the condition for a Hindu marriage in Section 5 of the Marriage Act which contains the condition that neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage and emphasis has been put to such a condition. It is to be seen that the burden of proving such a marriage always lies on such a person, who claims the performance of such marriage. It is also to be seen as to how a Hindu marriage is required to be proved. The necessary ceremonies, which are to be performed, are mentioned in Section 7 of the Marriage Act. It is to be seen that the burden of proving such a marriage always lies on such a person, who claims the performance of such marriage. It is also to be seen as to how a Hindu marriage is required to be proved. The necessary ceremonies, which are to be performed, are mentioned in Section 7 of the Marriage Act. Though it is said that a Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites or ceremonies of either party, where such rites and ceremonies include the Saptpadi, that is taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire, the marriage would become complete and binding when the seventh step is taken. It is not disputed by either party that they are governed by Hindu law and, therefore, first of.all marriage was required to be performed in the manner prescribed under the said law. The entire evidence of respondent No. 2, if scrutinized, where he has examined himself as D.W. 1, neither a certificate of registration of marriage has been produced nor a single word of performing such Saptpadi has been uttered before the Succession Court. The respondent No. 2 has put great emphasis in placing on record the evidence that the respondent No. 2 was living as husband with Smt. Pushpa Chouksey but he has completely failed to demonstrate that a legal and valid marriage was performed with said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey. He categorically contended that he met with said lady while he was attending his religious Guru and he started to visit said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey. It is said that on 15-1-2000, the religious Guru blessed the couple, i.e., respondent No. 2 and Smt. Pushpa Chouksey as husband and wife and since thereafter they started living as husband and wife. Such a form of marriage is neither recognized in Hindu custom nor is prescribed in the Hindu Law. The Marriage Act nowhere admits such type of marriage in the society; In the cross-examination, he has categorically admitted that the previous marriage of Smt. Pushpa Chouksey with Omkar Rai was dissolved on 21-12-2000 and that the marriage of the said lady performed with respondent No. 2 was not by performing Saptpadi liven this much he has admitted that after the marriage, surname of Smt. Pushpa Chouksey was not changed in every such Government documents. The other witnesses examined by him, namely Rajkumar Mishra (D.W. 1), Chaturbhuj Singh Rajput (D.W. 3) and Ritesh Sharma (D.W. 4), nowhere indicate that any marriage as per Hindu custom was solemnized between respondent No. 2 and Smt. Pushpa Chouksey. 8. Another facet is that undisputedly Smt. Pushpa Chouksey was married to Omkar Rai and she has applied for grant of a decree of divorce and dissolution of such a marriage in the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Sagar, by filing Civil Suit No. 123-A/2000. It is not that the said suit was ex parte decided. The suit was contested by said Omkar Rai. After recording of the evidence, the Court granted a decree of divorce only on 21-12-2000. Before the said date there was a valid marriage of said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey with Omkar Rai. It is not the case of anybody that said Omkar Rai had died prior to passing of judgment and decree in the aforesaid suit. He was very much living. As per the condition specifically mentioned in Section 5 of the Marriage Act, there cannot be any valid marriage if a party to the marriage has a spouse living at the time of marriage. Undisputedly, on 15-1-2000 marriage of Smt. Pushpa Chouksey with Omkar Rai was in existence. The consequence of such a second marriage is specifically prescribed in Section 11 of the Marriage Act, which according to law is a void marriage. If the marriage is void on its inception itself, it would not become a valid marriage after the grant of decree of divorce in favour of said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey on 21-12-2000. So called marriage of Smt. Pushpa Chouksey with respondent No. 2 was in fact void ah initio. 9. The effect of such a marriage has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2005) 3 SCC 636 . Though with respect to grant of maintenance, the entire consideration was done but the provisions of Sections 5 (i) and 11 of the Marriage Act, were duly considered by the Apex Court. It has been categorically held by the Apex Court that if a relationship is contacted during the subsistence of a marriage, the said relationship cannot be recognized as a valid marriage under the law. The Apex Court in the case of Rumesh Chandra Rampratapji Daga Vs. It has been categorically held by the Apex Court that if a relationship is contacted during the subsistence of a marriage, the said relationship cannot be recognized as a valid marriage under the law. The Apex Court in the case of Rumesh Chandra Rampratapji Daga Vs. Rameshwari Ramesh Chandra Daga, AIR 2005 SC 422 , has duly considered the null and void marriage under the Hindu Law. It is categorically held by the Apex Court that in absence of any decree of dissolution of first marriage from the Court, the said marriage is said to be subsisting when the second marriage was performed and, therefore, the second marriage of the wife was null and void. In the considered opinion of the Apex Court if the marriage is void ab initio, it would not become a valid marriage even if the decree of dissolution of the first marriage is subsequently passed. The Apex Court in the case of M.M. Malhotra Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 2006 SC 80 , has further considered the simple meaning of void marriage and has categorically said that there cannot be any escape of such a consequence, of declaration of marriage as null and void if the same has been performed in violation of the specific condition laid down under the Marriage Act. 10. In the light of the enunciation of law by the Apex Court if factual aspect is considered, it is abundantly clear that both the Courts below have completely failed to appreciate such a legal position in appropriate manner. The Succession Court while passing the order has not taken note of such a fact and has completely whisked by the submission made by official respondent No. 1 that there were certain applications made by the said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey for change of nomination or names of certain persons. Though the Courts below have held that by producing the nomination the petitioner has established that he was nominated by Smt. Pushpa Chouksey to receive the service benefits accrued to her but only because of a bald statement made without any documentary evidence by the official respondent, such a document was ignored. It was not considered proper by the Succession Court that the claim of marriage of respondent No. 2 with Srnt. Pushpa Chouksey be decided in appropriate manner, after appreciation of evidence and applying the law. It was not considered proper by the Succession Court that the claim of marriage of respondent No. 2 with Srnt. Pushpa Chouksey be decided in appropriate manner, after appreciation of evidence and applying the law. Had it been done, the Succession Court would have seen that though claimed but respondent No. 2 has completely failed to prove the valid marriage with Smt. Pushpa Chouksey in accordance to Hindu Law. Rather it would have been held that the so called marriage of respondent No. 2 with Smt. Pushpa Chouksey was void ab initio as per the provisions of the Marriage Act. If this would have been done by the Courts below, the orders would not have been passed granting succession certificate in favour of respondent No. 2. On the other hand, the application of the petitioner would have been allowed. Unfortunately, these aspects have not been considered by the Lower Appellate Court also and the appeal of the petitioner has been erroneously decided by the impugned order. The Appellate Authority has also not seen that whatever documents produced by the respondent No. 2 were not the proof of marriage, rather a valid marriage of respondent No. 2 with Smt. Pushpa Chouksey, as per the Hindu Law nor there was evidence of such a marriage, even oral. Before affirming the order of the Succession Court, the Lower Appellate Court has not applied its mind in appropriate manner in appreciating the law, vis-a-vis the evidence available on record. 11. Consequently, the revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order dated 31-3-2011 passed in Civil Appeal No. 13/2010 by the VI Additional District Judge, Sagar, as also the order dated 24-11-2010 passed in Succession Case No. 14/2009 by the III Civil Judge, Class-I, Sagar, are hereby set aside. The application made by the petitioner for grant of succession certificate is hereby allowed. The Court below is directed to issue a succession certificate in favour of the petitioner as per law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties to the revision will bear their own cost.