A marriage solemnized in contravention of Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act is neither void nor voidable.

B. J. DIVAN, C. J.

( 1 ) SINCE both these matters raise a common point of law, both of them have been placed before the Full Bench for deciding the following question:"whether a Hindu Marriage governed by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 where the parties to the marriage or either of them are below their respective ages as set out in Clause (iii) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, is void ab initio and is no marriage in the eye of law. "in Crl. R. C. of 1975, the facts of that the petitioner No. 1 was convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajam for an offence punishable under Section 494 I. P. C. And petitioner No. 2 was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 109, I. P. C. Both of them filed appeals and the appellate Court confirmed the convictions of both the petitioners, but modified their sentences to that of payment of Rs. 200. 00 and in default of payment of fine, each of the petitioners was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Against their convictions and sentences, the petitioners came by way of revision to this High Court.

( 2 ) WHEN the revision application came up before one of us (Muktadar, J.) on behalf of the petitioners, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in P. A. Saramma v. G. Ganapatulu (1975) 1 APLJ 37 = (AIR 1975 Andh Pra 193 ). In that case, the Division bench has held that a marriage, which is in contravention of Clause (iii) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act is void ab initio and is no marriage in the eye of law. Since it was felt that the view taken by the Division Bench was not in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, the matter was referred to a larger Bench. Thereafter, the matter came up before Chinappa Reddy and Punnayya, JJ. And, by their order dated 22/03/1976, they referred the matter to a Full Bench and thereafter the matter has come before us.

( 3 ) IN Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 809 of 1976, the Ist Petitioner is the husband and others are co-accused with him in a complaint filed by the Ist respondent-wife in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate , Siddipet, Medak District. The Ist respondent in this criminal miscellaneous Petition filed a criminal complaint, C. C. No. 323 of 1976, in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siddipet, against her husband (Ist petitioner) and ten others alleging that her husband had committed an offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and that the other accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 109 I. P. C. According to the petitioner in this petition at the time of the marriage i. e. in the year 1959 he was 13 years of age and the Ist Respondent was 9 years of age. The husband contends that in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in P. A. Saramma v. G. Ganapatulu (1975) 1 APLJ 37 = (AIR 1975 Andh Pra 193), the marriage between him and the Ist respondent was void ab initio and no marriage in the eye of law and hence the action of the Ist petitioner in marrying a girl did not amount to an offence punishable under Section 494. Under these circumstances in this criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioners have prayed that the prosecution in C. C. No. 323 of 1976 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siddipet, be quashed. Since the question involved in this criminal miscellaneous petition is the same as the one raised in Criminal Revision Application No. 190/75, which stood referred to a Full Bench, this Criminal miscellaneous petition was also directed to be posted along with the criminal revision application. It is under these circumstances that both these matters have been heard together by this Full Bench.

( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions in these cases, it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The preamble of the Act shows that it i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document