1) your marriage during subsistence of earlier marriage is null and void .

2) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.M.Malhotra Vs. Union of India and others AIR 2006 SC 80 to contend that the marriage of the respondent being void did not need any declaration from the court. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case referred to above was pleased to law down as under:-

"11. For appreciating the status of a Hindu woman marrying a Hindu male with a living spouse some of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (thereafter referred to as the Marriage Act) have to be examined. Section 11 of the Marriage Act declared such a marriage as null and void in the following terms::

11. "Void marriage-- Any marriage solemnized after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void and may, on a petition presented by either party thereto against the other party, be 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."

3) clause (i) of Section 5 lays down, for a lawful marriage, he necessary condition that neither party should have a spouse living at the time of the marriage. A marriage in contravention of this condition, therefore, is null and void. By reason of the overriding effect of the Marriage Act as mentioned in section 4, no aid can be taken of the earlier Hindu law or any custom or usage as a part of that law inconsistent with any provision of the Act. So far as Section 12 is concerned, it is confined to other categories of marriages and is not applicable to one solemnized in violation of Section 5 (i) of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 puts further restrictions on such a right. The cases covered by this section are not void ab initio, and unless all the conditions mentioned therein are fulfilled and the aggrieved party exercises the right to avoid it, the same continues to be effective 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 at 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 formal declaration from a court in a proceeding specifically commenced for the purpose.

in the case of Vinod Sehgal Vs. Smt.Santosh Kumari and another 1979 All India Hindu Law Reporter 545, wherein this court was pleased to lay down as under:-

"12. The Division Bench in a reference made in this case has held that a petition under section 11 of the Act for obtaining a declaration of nullity of a marriage, which was void ab initio would not fall within the scope of the words 'in any proceedings under this Act' used in section 23.On July 18, 1970, when the appellant and Santosh Kumari married, the latter's previous marriage with Vinod Kumar respondent No.2 was admittedly subsisting. Their marriage will be covered by section 11 read with section 5 (i) of the Act and thus shall be void ab inito. In view of the decision of the Division Bench, section 23 of the Act shall have no application. The marriage of the appellant with Santosh Kumari respondent, therefore, shall continue to be void ab initio irrespective of the fact that he knew about the previous subsisting marriage of Santosh Kumari. In this situation the appellant is entitled to a decree of nullity of his marriage with Santosh Kumari under section 11 of the At and the learned District Judge erred in holding otherwise."

1) if petitioner has not come to court with clean hands and has suppreesed material facts he is not entitled to any relief

2) A

litigant is bound to make “full and true disclosure of facts”. (Refer :

Tilokchand H.B. Motichand & Ors. v. Munshi & Anr. [1969 (1) SCC

110]; A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu

Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam & Anr. [(2012) 6 SCC

430]; Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma [(1995) SCC 1 421];

Abhyudya Sanstha v. Union of India & Ors. [(2011) 6 SCC 145];

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan & Anr.

[(2011) 7 SCC 639]; Kalyaneshwari v. Union of India & Anr.

[(2011) 3 SCC 287)].

3) The person seeking equity must do equity. It is not just the

clean hands, but also clean mind, clean heart and clean objective

that are the equi-fundamentals of judicious litigation. The legal

maxim jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et

injuria fieri locupletiorem, which means that it is a law of nature

that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another, is

the percept for Courts. Wide jurisdiction of the court should not

become a source of abuse of the process of law by the disgruntled

litigant. Careful exercise is also necessary to ensure that the

litigation is genuine, not motivated by extraneous considerations

and imposes an obligation upon the litigant to disclose the true

facts and approach the court with clean hands.

35. No litigant can play ‘hide and seek’ with the courts or adopt

‘pick and choose’. True facts ought to be disclosed as the Court

knows law, but not facts. One, who does not come with candid

facts and clean breast cannot hold a writ of the court with soiled

hands. Suppression or concealment of material facts is

impermissible to a litigant or even as a technique of advocacy. In

such cases, the Court is duty bound to discharge rule nisi and

such applicant is required to be dealt with for contempt of court

for abusing the process of the court. {K.D. Sharma v. Steel

Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. [(2008) 12 SCC 481].

Since both of you were not divorced at the time of marriage, your marriage is null and void ab initio. Also, since you have proof that he has not come to court with clean hands, make such submission before the court along with evidence. Such wrong statement on oath knowing that the statement made is wrong is an offence of perjury under the criminal law and the court does not grant any relief to such person. Instead the court can suo moto take action against such person.

1. Not only you, he was also not divorced when both of you got married,

2. For the above reason, your marriage is void at law,

3. Moreover, he had supressed the fact and did not come before the Court with clean hand,

4. Pray for relif from the Court based on the above.

The citation provided above by Adv Sethi is adequate to seek relief from the Court.

1. Panchayati divorce has no legal value.

2. Your marriage without obtaining divorcing from the court is null and void.

3. Your husband has concealed facts from the court and has made himself liable to be prosecuted for perjury.

4. The court can on its own motion initiate perjury proceedings against him.

Furthermore, he can also be prosecuted for bigamy and cheating as he was not divorced at the time of marriage.

Dear Querist

As per information provided by you, both of you are legally married with others at the time of your marriage solemnization, hence the marriage is ab-initio void and the court concerned passed correct order.

if you think that he hide something or give false statement before courts then you may file a perjury case against him before court where he filed false statement on oath.

there are many judgments in which the Apex court clearly held that "As a general Rule, suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief"

(2004)7 SCC 166 para 13

2005 SCC(Cri.)1322 para 21