JUDGMENT : Anant Ramanath Hegde, J. – 1. (a) Whether the second marriage which is solemnized during the subsistence of the first marriage in contravention of S.5(i) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, can be declared as valid if the first marriage is subsequently dissolved by a decree of the Court ? This is one of the questions that is required to be answered while deciding this case. 2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the case are narrated as under; The appellant-plaintiff before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari filed a suit in O.S.No.19/2018 seeking a declaration to declare that her marriage with the defendant said to have been solemnized on 26/9/2013 is a valid marriage and that the plaintiff is legally wedded wife of the defendant. 3. According to the appellant, her marriage with the respondent is solemnized on 26/9/2013 and is registered before the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar. The suit was contested by the respondent, disputing her claim. Based on the pleadings, the family Court framed five issues and the issue No.3 relating to maintainability of the suit is treated as a preliminary issue. 4. The plaint averments itself disclose that on 19/3/2008, the plaintiff married one Pampapati. Even according to the plaintiff, the marriage with Pampapati was not dissolved by the competent Court when she married the respondent on 26/9/2013. It is further claimed that after her marriage with the respondent, the petitioner's first marriage with Pampapati was dissolved in terms of judgment and decree dtd. 17/9/2014 based on a mutual petition filed seeking divorce. 5. By referring to the above said pleadings and contentions raised by the parties, the trial Court has treated issue No.3 as a preliminary issue and has concluded that the suit seeking a declaration of the marital status of the plaintiff with the defendant is not maintainable. The trial Court has placed reliance on Ss. 5 and 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act') to support the said conclusion. 6. Sec. 5 of the Act deals with conditions for a Hindu Marriage. In terms of Sec. 5(i), for the marriage to be valid under the Act, neither party should have a spouse living at the time of marriage. 5 and 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act') to support the said conclusion. 6. Sec. 5 of the Act deals with conditions for a Hindu Marriage. In terms of Sec. 5(i), for the marriage to be valid under the Act, neither party should have a spouse living at the time of marriage. As per Sec. 11 of the Act which deals with void marriages, any marriage solemnized in contravention of any one of the conditions prescribed in Sec. 5(i) (iv) (v) of the Act, is void. Applying these two provisions, the trial Court has held that the declaration as sought by the plaintiff cannot be granted, as her marriage with the respondent is void under Sec. 5(i) read with Sec. 11 of the Act. 7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant Mr Nadaf in support of his grounds urged in the appeal memo would make the following submissions. (a) The 1st marriage of the plaintiff is dissolved in terms of the decree for divorce dtd. 17/9/2014 in MC No.288/2013 on the file of Family Court, Ballari. Thus, the marriage solemnized on 26/9/2013 between the plaintiff and defendant should be declared valid and this aspect should have been decided after holding the trial. (b) The trial court committed error in dismissing the suit without recording the evidence of the parties. It is further urged that issue No.3 could not have been treated as a preliminary issue. 8. This Court perused the records particularly the pleadings and this Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar. 9. Sec. 5 of the Act, prescribes conditions for a Hindu marriage. As per Sec. 5 (i) a marriage may be solemnized between two Hindus if neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage. The remaining conditions prescribed in the said Sec. 5 of the Act are not relevant for the adjudication of this case. Sec. 11 of the Act deals with void marriages. If any one of the conditions specified in clauses (i), (iv)and (v) of Sec. 5 is contravened, then the marriage is void. Admittedly, in this case, the 2nd marriage of the plaintiff with the defendant was solemnized on 26/9/2013. The 1st marriage of the plaintiff which was solemnized on 19/3/2008 was still subsisting though the plaintiff was not residing with her 1st husband as the relationship with the 1st husband was strained. Admittedly, in this case, the 2nd marriage of the plaintiff with the defendant was solemnized on 26/9/2013. The 1st marriage of the plaintiff which was solemnized on 19/3/2008 was still subsisting though the plaintiff was not residing with her 1st husband as the relationship with the 1st husband was strained. Admittedly, the 1st marriage was dissolved in terms of decree for divorce granted on 17/9/2014. The order passed subsequent to the void marriage (2nd marriage), dissolving the 1st marriage solemnized on 19/3/2008 cannot come to the rescue of the plaintiff to validate her marriage with the respondent which is said to have taken place on 26/9/2013 as the 2nd marriage is not a marriage in the eye of law. Since the said marriage is void from inception, no subsequent act can validate a marriage that is void under the law. If the plea of the plaintiff to validate the marriage which contravened Sec.5(i) of the Act is to be accepted it would defeat the object of Sec.5(i). The provision seeks to prohibit second marriage during the subsistence of first marriage. What cannot be done directly cannot be allowed to be done indirectly. Thus the plea to validate the 2nd marriage which is invalid from inception by taking into account the subsequent dissolution of the first marriage has to be rejected. 10. Coming to the next contention raised by Mr Nadaf that the trial court committed an error in treating the issue relating to maintainability of the suit as a preliminary issue there is no difficulty upholding the decision of the trial Court for the following reasons. 11. The plaintiff herself has stated her first marriage was dissolved based on a petition seeking a mutual divorce, in terms of the decree dtd. 17/9/2014 passed in MC No.288/2013 on the file of Family Court, Ballari. These facts are not disputed by the defendant-respondent. Thus, it emerges from the admitted facts, the plaintiff married the defendant during the subsistence of the first marriage. Hence it is void as it contravened Sec. 5 (i) of the Act. This being the position of law, any amount of evidence to be led by the parties is of no consequence. Accordingly, the declaration sought by the plaintiff cannot be granted at all by referring to evidence to be recorded. Hence it is void as it contravened Sec. 5 (i) of the Act. This being the position of law, any amount of evidence to be led by the parties is of no consequence. Accordingly, the declaration sought by the plaintiff cannot be granted at all by referring to evidence to be recorded. Thus, the contention of the plaintiff that the trial court could not have held issue No.3 in the affirmative has no merit. The trial court did the right thing by treating issue No.3, as a preliminary issue as no oral evidence is necessary to give a finding on the said issue given the fact that the plaintiff herself has asserted that she did marry the respondent when her 1st marriage was still subsisting. 12. There is no need to record evidence on the facts, which are admitted and borne out by the undisputed records. If there is a ground or provision to pass the orders on merits of the case, based on admitted facts, there is no need to hold the trial Court or record evidence. There is no mandate that every suit should be tried by recording evidence. If the controversy between the parties can be adjudicated without recording evidence and a verdict can be delivered on the final relief claimed in the suit, based on facts admitted in the pleadings, there is no need to hold the trial to record the evidence. In other words, if admitted facts in the pleadings attract a provision of law and on the application of such law, if the judgment could be pronounced on the relief claimed in the suit, there is no need to hold the trial. 13. The suit before the trial Court was one of such cases where the Court based on the pleading has rightly treated issues relating to the maintainability of the suit as a preliminary issue and has rightly held that the suit is not maintainable. Thus, the contention that the suit could not have been dismissed without recording evidence has no merit. 14. It is also useful to refer to Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to answer the contention raised by the appellant. Thus, the contention that the suit could not have been dismissed without recording evidence has no merit. 14. It is also useful to refer to Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to answer the contention raised by the appellant. The aforesaid provision reads as under: "Order 14 Rule 2-Court to pronounce judgment on all issues.— (1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. (2) Where issues both of law and fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to--- (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue.]" 15. Order 14 Rule 2(b) enables the Court to treat an issue relating to the bar to the suit as a preliminary issue. In the instant case, there is no dispute over the fact the plaintiff's alleged second marriage which is said to have taken place on 26/9/2013 is during the subsistence of the first marriage. This factual aspect which is not in dispute imposes a bar to grant the relief of declaration of validity of second marriage which is claimed in the plaint. In such a scenario, the Court is under a legal obligation to pronounce judgement on the preliminary issue without recording any evidence. Recording evidence in such cases would be a futile exercise. In all cases where there is a scope to decide the case on admitted facts, the Court shall endeavour to pronounce the judgement without recording evidence. In such a scenario, the Court is under a legal obligation to pronounce judgement on the preliminary issue without recording any evidence. Recording evidence in such cases would be a futile exercise. In all cases where there is a scope to decide the case on admitted facts, the Court shall endeavour to pronounce the judgement without recording evidence. Though the expression "may" used in Sub-rule (2) of Order 14 Rule 2 confers a discretion to the Court to try the case on all issues, the Court has to endeavour to dispose of the case on the preliminary issue if the issue relates to either the jurisdiction of the Court or to a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. The object of the said provision is to cut short the time taken for adjudication of cases falling under the category specified in the Sub-rule (2). Given the object of the said Rule, the Courts have no option but to try the issues relating to the jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force but to try the issue as a preliminary issue. Thus, the word "may" found in Order 14 Rule 2 is to be read as "shall" making it mandatory on the part of the trial court to treat the issue as a preliminary issue if the issue relates to the bar of suit or maintainability of suits based on the facts admitted in the pleadings. 16. Under these circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 17. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petition filed by the respondent-husband seeking a declaration of nullity of marriage with the appellant is allowed and marriage with the appellant is declared null and void. Though no material is placed for the Court in support of his contention, the same is not disputed by the appellant. If such a decree is granted in favour of the present respondent, then it is yet another reason to dismiss the present appeal. 18. Though no material is placed for the Court in support of his contention, the same is not disputed by the appellant. If such a decree is granted in favour of the present respondent, then it is yet another reason to dismiss the present appeal. 18. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is cheated by the respondent and it is further alleged that the respondent has raped the appellant on the assurance of marrying the appellant. If this is the grievance of the plaintiff-appellant then the present suit is not the appropriate remedy for the plaintiff. It is made clear that the dismissal of the suit and this appeal will not come in the way of the plaintiff-appellant seeking appropriate relief available under law to seek redressal of her grievance relating to cheating or any other offence. The finding in this appeal is only confined to the relief of declaration of validity of the plaintiff's alleged marriage dtd. 26/9/2013, with the defendant. If any criminal or any other case filed by the appellant against the respondent is pending same shall be decided on its merit. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost. Pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they are disposed of.