इसे हिंदी में पढ़ने के लिए यहाँ क्लिक करें
Case Summary
| Citation | Pinninti Venkataramana v. State, AIR 1977 AP 43 |
| Keywords | Section 5 Hindu Marriage Act,1955 Section 11 Hindu Marriage Act,1955 |
| Facts | The husband was 13-year-old at the time of marriage and the wife was 9-year-old. After a few years the husband married another woman. The wife wanted to prosecute the husband for the offence of bigamy. The husband was convicted by a judicial first-class magister was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month. The sentences were later modified thereto of payment of Rs. 200/-. The previous Court held the marriage was legal. So, he was convicted for marrying again. The husband contended that since his |
| Issues | “Whether a Hindu child Marriage is void ab initio ? |
| Contentions | Appellant: – the appellant humble submitted that at the time of marriage he was 13-year-old and his wife was nine-year-old according to eye of law our marriage void ab into so my marriage was not illegal according to the law am not there is no offence under section of 494 of Indian Penal Code. Respondent: – The respondent humble submitted that his husband and ten others are liable under section 494 of Indian Penal Code previous Court also held that marriage is a legal marriage. |
| Law Points | Section 5 lays down the conditions for a Hindu marriage and it is in these terms: 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) neither party is an idiot or a lunatic at the time of the marriage; (iii) the bridegroom has completed the age of eighteen years and the bride the age of fifteen 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; (vi) where the bride has not completed the age of eighteen years, the consent of her guardian in marriage, if any, has been obtained for the marriage. Section 11 lays down as to when marriages governed by the Act are to be considered void marriages. It is in these terms: Any marriage solemnized after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void and may, on a petition presented by either party thereto, be so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes any of the conditions specified in clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5. |
| Judgement | the only ground on which the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siddipet, is sought to be quashed is that the marriage between the parties was void, since the marriage was solemnized in 1959 when the bridegroom was 13 years of age and the bride was 9 years of age and relying upon the decision in P.A. Saramma v. G. Ganapatulu it was sought to be argued that the complaint filed by the wife alleging that the husband had committed an offence punishable under Section 494 I. P. C. and that the other accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 109, I. P. C. must be quashed. This relief cannot be granted in the view we have taken. Criminal Miscellaneous petition No. 809/76 is therefore, dismissed. |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority | The Court distinguished Sections 11 and 12 of the Act for better clarity on the said provisions. The said differentiation was given in a tabular form for a better understanding. Basis of difference Section 11 of the Act Section 12 of the Act Deals with Void marriage Voidable marriage Application The rule under Section 11 applies only to the marriages that are solemnised before the enforcement of the Act. The rule under Section 12 applies to all marriages, irrespective of whether they are solemnised before or after the enforcement of the Act. Grounds When clauses (i), (iv) or (v) of Section 5 are violated When any clause provided in Section 5 is violated, it becomes voidable at the instance of one party, who is entitled to do so, and, if either of the grounds mentioned in Section 12 is satisfied, such marriage will be declared as no marriage by the competent court. From the above differentiation, the High Court found that the violation of clause (ii) of Section 5 will make such marriage voidable at the option of one party to the marriage and, until such spouse entitled to do so has not approached the competent court for obtaining the decree of nullity of marriage, the marriage in question is valid. The Court, then, examined the principles and law laid down in the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act relevant to the case, namely, Sections 4, 5, 11 and 12, and concluded that there is no mention in any of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act regarding the consequence of the violation of clause (ii) of Section i.e., the age limit prescribed by law. However, on careful perusal of Sections 5, 11, 12, 17 and 18 of the Act, the High Court made the following findings regarding the legal consequences of a violation of the clauses mentioned in Section 5. Only the violation of clauses (i), (iv) or (v) will make the marriage null and void, and any party to the marriage can obtain a decree of nullity on petition from a competent court of law, as provided in Section 11. Thus, violation of other clauses, namely, clauses (ii), (iii) and (vi), will not render a marriage void. The violation of clause (ii), i.e., the age limit condition, will make the marriage just voidable, not void, as per Section 12 and, subsequently, liable to be annulled at the option of the party concerned. In cases where the bride is under 18 years of age if consent by the guardian in marriage is obtained by way of force or fraud, then it renders such marriage voidable. The Court also found that a violation of clause (vi) or absence of a guardian’s consent does not make a marriage void. The legislature imposed punishment or penalty on the party who violates any of the rules provided in all clauses of Section 5 except clause (ii). From the above findings, it is evident that the legal consequences of the contravention of each clause of Section 5 are different from one another. |
Full Case Details
2 comments
[…] Click here to read it in English. […]
[…] 04 Lily Thomas v. Union of India, 2000 Case Analysis 05 Pinninti Venkataramana v. State, AIR 1977 AP 43 […]