JUDGMENT :- This appeal by Smt. Naumi through her next friend Shri Shib Lal is directed against a decree of the learned Senior Sub-Judge Mahasu, whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Ss. 11, 12, 13 and 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act hereinafter to be referred as the Act, was dismissed.

2. The allegations on which the petition was founded were these. The petitioner was married to respondent No. 1 on 10th of Magh 2014 B (1958) in accordance with the Praina custom obtaining in the ilaqua. She was minor at the time of the marriage, the consent of her parents had not been obtained to the marriage and that her uncles. Sarv Shri Sehaj Ram and Hirda Ram who had given her in marriage were the sons-in-law of Mani Ram the own brother of respondent No. 1. At the time of the aforesaid marriage respondent No. 1 had another wife respondent No. 2 living with him and even if she is not proved to be his wife he was having sexual intercourse with her. After her marriage the petitioner lived at the house of respondent No. 1 for about 5 or 6 days only and during that period she did not have any sexual intercourse with him and was treated by him with cruelty. The age of respondent No. 1 was about 60 years and there was great disparity between him and her age.

3. The petition was resisted by the respondents. It was denied that respondent No. 2 was married to respondent No. 1 or that she was having illicit connection with him. It was also denied that she had been treated with cruelty by them. It was alleged that after her marriage the petitioner lived with respondent No. 1 for about a year and thereafter fled away with one Bhup Ram. A report of the incident was made to the Gram Panchayat and an amicable settlement was arrived at and she returned to the house of respondent No. 1 but 3 or 4 days thereafter went to her mothers place and from there went to the house of Nantia. It was denied that during the time that the petitioner lived with respondent No. 1 no marital intercourse took place between them.

4. The learned Senior Sub-Judge framed the following issues :

"1. Whether the marriage of the petitioner was performed without the consent of her parents ?

2. Was another spouse Smt. Sevti living with respondent No. 1 at the time of marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 1 ?

3. In case issue No. 2 is not proved whether respondent No. 1 is living in adultery with respondent No. 2 ?

4. Whether it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with respondent No. 1 ?

5. Relief."

5. The learned Senior Sub-Judge recorded findings on all the issues against the appellant and in consequence dismissed the petition.

6. The first contention advanced on behalf of the appellant is that at the time of her marriage with respondent No. 1 she was about 13 or 14 years old only and as such her marriage was in contravention of S. 5 clause (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act and was null and void. Section 5 of the Act prescribes the conditions for a Hindu Marriage and one of those conditions is that the bridegroom has completed the age of 18 years and the bride the age of 15 years at the, time of the marriage. Section 11. of the Act inter alia provides that any marriage solemnized after the commencement of the Act shall be null and void if it contravences any one of the conditions specified in clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5. The grounds on which any marriage solemnized whether before or after the commencement of the Act shall be voidable have been enumerated in S. 12 of the Act and a contravention of clause (iii) is not one of those grounds.

On behalf of the appellant it has been contended that a marriage of a girl who had not completed 15 years of age at the time of marriage was invalid in view of S. 5 of the Act and there was an inadvertent lacuna in Ss. 11 and 12 of the Act in as much as a contravention of clause (iii) of S. 5 was not made a ground for the annulment of the marriage. I am, however, unable -to accede to the contention. A reference to th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document