The central legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are applicable only in case of admitted marriage.

Mungeshwar, J.

1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated Sahoo, J. 04.03.2002 passed by the learned 6th Addl. District Judge, Begusarai in Matrimonial Case No.11 of 1999 dismissing the applicants application under Hindu Marriage Act.

2. The applicant-appellant filed an application praying for the reliefs that on adjudication, the Court be pleased to hold and declare that so called marriage of the petitioner with the opposite party alleged to have been solemnized in the year 1992 is null and void on the ground that both the spouse were minor in the year 1992 and the so called marriage was solemnized under duress, compulsion, threat and coercion. The plaintiffs prayed for the aforesaid reliefs pleading that from perusal of the F.I.R., it was disclosed that Mostt. Kranti Devi w/o Late Ram Kripal Singh gave statement that her daughter, Ranjana Devi was married with the appellant in the year 1992. She also alleged that dowry was demanded and subsequently applicant married second time. The said F.I.R. was registered under Section 494 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. From perusal of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it appears to the appellant that it has been contended that marriage was solemnized in the year 1992. It is further pleaded that from perusal of case diary, it appears to the appellant that I.O. found that the appellant was kidnapped under gun point and was forced to marry with the respondent. The appellant never accepted the marriage nor the marriage ever solemnized in the year 1992 and moreover according to the Investigating Officer after kidnapping, marriage was solemnized. According to the version of the mother of respondent, the marriage was done in 1992 but admittedly both of them were minor. Since the appellant is facing prosecution under Section 494 I.P.C. it is desirable that so called marriage may be declared as null and void. It is further alleged that both the parties never lived as husband and wife and there was no conjugal relation.

3. The opposite party-respondent appeared and filed written statement denying all the allegations made by the appellant and it is alleged that the marriage was solemnized with the consent by the parents of the parties and it was an arranged marriage. After marriage, dowry of Rs.50,000/- was demanded and for non-fulfillment of the dowry, she was being subject to cruelty and then applicant-appellant married second wife 3 and, therefore, criminal case was filed. The opposite party-respondent also filed maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Court below framed following issues :

(i) Is the suit as framed maintainable?

(ii) Whether the applicant has got valid cause of action or right to sue?

(iii) Whether the proceeding is hit by Law of Limitation?

(iv) Whether the marriage in between the parties solemnized on Ganga Dasahara in the year 1992?

(v) Whether the applicant was married by an act of kidnapping/abduction under threat of life?

(vi) Whether the applicant did not relish or lead the life covering marital status of o.p.?

(vii) Whether the applicant and o.p. at the time of marriage happens to be minor?

(viii) Whether the applicant is entitled for a decree of declaration of marriage as null and void?

(ix) What other relief or reliefs the applicant is entitled for?

5. After trial, the learned Court below found that the appellant is not admitting the marriage and, therefore, the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act is not applicable and dismissed the application of the appellant.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is the case made out in the F.I.R. and also in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite parties-respondent that marriage was solemnized in the year 1992 therefore, the application was filed praying for declaration that the said marriage is null and void but the learned Court below dismissed the said application. Ac