IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 39 OF 2007 MR. AVERTANO PAUL SOUZA FERNANDES ALIAS SQN. LDR. A. P. FERNANDES ... Appellant Versus MRS. SUSHILA LEONARDO SOUZA FERNANDES ALIAS SUSHILA L. DIAS AND 6 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Agnelo F. Diniz, Advocate for the Appellant. Coram:- R. C. CHAVAN, J. Date:- 25th August, 2008 P.C. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the Order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao, rejecting the appellant's application Exbt.6, for being joined as a party to the inventory proceedings. 2. The appellant is husband of respondent no.1. The marriage was solemnized on 14.9.1986. On 25.11.1988 father-in-law Emerciano Dias expired and inventory opened. The marriage of the appellant to the respondent no.1 Sushila was dissolved by decree of divorce on 7.2.1991. Thus on the day the inventory opened, the marriage of appellant with the respondent no.1 was subsisting. The learned Counsel for the appellant has produced for my perusal the copy of decree to show that it was not a decree of nullity but it was a decree of divorce. 3. The learned Civil Judge had rejected the application initially vide Order dated 18.6.2001. This Order was set aside by this Court in Appeal From Order No.78/2001 vide Judgment dated 16.11.2006. The Trial Judge was directed to hear the parties on the application again and to dispose it off. Upon remand, the learned Trial Judge has passed the impugned Order. The learned Trial Judge has held that the marriage of the respondent no.1 solemnized with the appellaant was void ab-initio. 4. I have heard learned Advocate Diniz for the appellant. None appeard for the respondents, though duly served with a notice that the matter would be taken up for final hearing, upon admission. The learned Trial Judge was obviously wrong in holding that the marriage was void ab-initio when it was only dissolved by decree of divorce passed on 7.2.1991. Therefore since the marriage was not void ab-initio, on the date of the inventory opened, the appellant continued to be husband of the respondent no.1 and therefore his rights if any were required to be decided in the inventory proceedings. The appeal is therefore allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application Exbt.6 dated 30.3.1999 by the appellant before the Trial Court is allowed. R. C. CHAVAN, J. cg