Siya Ram vs Munni Devi

M. Wahajuddin, J.—The opposite party moved an application against the applicant u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance from him as her husband. The husband has come forward with a prayer that the proceeding may be quashed. It is urged that on the allegations in the application itself and the materials on records the opposite party was a minor. It is further urged that at the time of their alleged marriage the applicant was 14 years old while the wife was 12 years old and both were minors as such and the marriage is void. I continued the arguments and asked the Counsel for the applicant to show how the marriage would be void and the applicant''s Counsel Sri. U.C. Misra then simply cited the case of Panchireddi Appala Suramma alias Gadela Appalasuramma Vs. Gadela Ganapatlu, , a Division Bench case in which dissenting from a case of Smt. Naumi Vs. Narotam and Another, , it was held that where bridegroom is below 18 or bride is below 15 years the marriage is void ab initio. Not satisfied I got commentary in course of arguments and looked into the actual position of law upto date during arguments. I am pained to observe that Sri. Misra has cited an overruled ruling. When I had listed the case for continued argument it was very much expected that if proper assistance is not being offered at least any overruled case will not be cited. I may mention that the Andhra Pradesh High Court by its Full Bench pronouncement in Pinninti Venkataramana and Another Vs. State, has overruled the case of P.A. Supramma (supra). In that case of Andhra Pradesh as well as vide the pronouncements in Smt. Naumi Vs. Narotam and Another, , Mohinder Kaur Vs. Major Singh, and Durjyodhan Pradhan Vs. Bengabati Dei, it has been held that any marriage in violation of Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act is neither void nor voidable. Such type of marriages though punishable u/s 18 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is a different matter, have not been declared void or voidable u/s 5. It is also noteworthy that had the intention of the Legislature been to treat such marriage void or voidable ab initio, u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which deals with divorce, a right to have such marriage dissolved would not have been confined to the wife alone u/s 13(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, nor there would have been a further restriction placed that apart from showing that the marriage was solemnised before she attained the age of fifteen years she has actually repudiated the marriage after attaining that age and being attaining the age of eighteen years. The Supreme Court has also in the case of Lila Gupta v. Laxmi Narain AIR 1978 SC 1351 though dealing with Section 15 and the proviso of the Hindu Marriage Act as proposition of law held that wherever the Parliament intended to treat any marriage void on account of contravention of any provision it has expressly so stated. Observations in paragraph 6 of the case of Lila Gupta (supra) are important laying down that while u/s 5 of the Act six conditions have been provided u/s 11 marriages solemnised in contravention of conditions (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5 alone have been made void. This in itself lays down that any marriage in contravention of condition No. (iii) of Section 5 of the Act which concerns the age is not void.

In the result this application is summarily rejected.