1. This appeal arises out of a suit for divorce under S.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The divorce is at the instance of the husband. Divorce has been refused. Hence this appeal has been preferred under S.28 of the said Act. The marriage admittedly was solemnised on 27-4-1977.

2. Four grounds were taken in support of suit for dissolution of marriage, namely, (a) on the date of the marriage the bridegroom did not complete the age of 18 years. He was only 17 years 5 months. The marriage, therefore, was solemnised in contravention of S. 5(iii) of the Act. (b) on 3rd of May, 1977 the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent, (c) The consent of the bridegroom and/or of the guardian was obtained by practising fraud; hence vitiated under S.12(1)(c) of the Act. The fact that the bride was suffering from physical infirmity i.e. she had no right breast was suppressed, (d) the bride was leading an adulterous life and, therefore, the marriage be dissolved under S.13(1) of the Act.

3. It may be stated at the outset that the paramours with whom the bride is stated to have immoral connections have not been impleaded as co-respondents in the suit.

4. The trial Court held that the appellant was not less than 18 years of age at the time of marriage. It further held that no fraud and deception have been practised in obtaining consent prior to the marriage. There has been no dissolution of marriage as alleged on the 3rd May, 1977. It also held that the marriage was consummated during the period from 28-4-1977 to 3-5-1977. The story of unchastity and adultery, as alleged, was completely disbelieved.

5. So far as the question of minority is concerned, apart from the finding recorded by the trial Court that the bridegroom was not below the age of 18 years, the question that arises is, even assuming that he was minor, whether the marriage is void on that score. S.11 of the Act deals with the void marriages. It envisages that the marriage solemnised in contravention of any of the conditions specified in Cls.(i), (iv) and (v) of S.5 after the commencement of the Act shall be null and void. But S.11 of the Act does not refer to Cl. 5(iii). Similarly S. 12, which deals with voidable marriages, also does not refer to S.5(iii). S.18 speaks about consequences of a marriage held in violation of S.5(iii). The consequence envisaged is only a criminal prosecution. It is, therefore, manifest that the marriage solemnised in violation of S.5(iii) remaings unaffected. Neither the marriage is void nor voidable. The appellant, therefore, cannot obtain disengagement on this score. The point fails.

6. It has next been contended that the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent on 3-5-1977. Admittedly no petition has been filed by the bridegroom and the bride that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. It is said that there was a panchaiti in the village and in the said panchaiti both parties agreed to dissolve their marriage. In the instant suit, the bride disputes the panchaiti and contends that there had never been a mutual agreement to dissolve the marriage. The appellant, however, submits that the panchaiti was given effect to and that they have been staying and living separately from each other for a period of one year or more.

7. The Act has provided for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under the Marriage Laws Amendment Act, 1976. The only method of dissolution of marriage by mutual agreement should be within the four corners of S.13(b) of the Act and not otherwise. There has been no compliance of the said section. Admittedly the parties have not filed a petition jointly and/or the bride has not agreed in the suit to the dissolution sought for by the husband. No decree for divorce, therefore, can follow by mutual consent. This point, therefore, also fails. The appellant is not entitled to a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

8. The next question is whether the marriage sh