A child marriage, though prohibited by the Child Marriage Restraint Act, is not rendered invalid by any provision therein. The minority of a male does not render his marriage invalid under Hindu law, even if the marriage was not brought about on his behalf by his natural or lawful guardian. The consent of the husband's guardian is not necessary for the validity of a marriage under Hindu law.

JUDGMENT:- In O.S. No.66 of 1956 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Nagarooil one Bhagavathyamma sued her husband Sivanandy for restitution of conjugal rights. The parties belong to Velar community governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. The plaintiff alleged that she was married to the defendant on 13th Panguni 1119 M.E. according to Hindu shastraic rights. The plaintiff was a mere girl 13 years old at the time of the alleged marriage. She had not attained puberty at that time. The defendant was also a minor on the alleged date of marriage aged about 15 years or 16 years. According to the plaintiff after she attained the age the marriage was consummated and a nuptial ceremony was performed, and that she was living with the defendant in his house for about a month or so. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant was not prepared to live with her and that therefore she had to live away from him in her parents house.

2. The defendant resisted the suit and contended that there was no valid marriage between him and the plaintiff though he was made to undergo a form of marriage without the prosper consent of his father or other elder members of his family. He denied that the marriage was ever consummated and also pleaded that the plaintiff led an unchaste life by living with one Paradesi Velar. The simple issue between the parties was whether they were lawfully married and whether the plaintiff had a cause of action to sue for restitution of conjugal rights.

3. The learned Subordinate Judge of Nagarcoil found that the plaintiff was the lawfully wedded wife of the defendant, and that the plaintiff was entitled to sue for restitution of conjugal rights as the defendant had unlawfully and without reason failed to fulfil his marital obligation and accordingly granted a decree if favour of the plaintiff. This appeal is preferred by the defendant-husband against the said decree and judgment.

4 to 7. There is ample proof in support of the plaintiffs case of marriage, with the defendant. (After discussing the evidence on point His Lordship proceeded). I have no hesitation in concurring with the finding of the learned Subordinate judge that there was a marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant as alleged by the plaintiff.

8. It was next contended on behalf of the appellant that the marriage even if true was not valid in law as it was in violation of the provisions of the Child Marriage Restraint Act. Having regard to the respective ages of the plaintiff and the defendant at the time of the alleged marriage it seems that their marriage was one which came within the ambit of the, Act. But a child marriage though prohibited by that Act is not rendered invalid by any provision therein. It Las been held by the Allahabad High Court in Munshiram v. Emperor, ILR 58 All 402 : (AIR 1936 All 11) that a contravention of the provisions of the Child Marriage Restraint Act (XIX of 1929) does not render the marriage invalid as the validity of the marriage is a subject beyond the scope of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Child Marriage Restraint Act in operation in the Travancore territory prior to its merger in the Indian Union contained a provision that the child marriage can be permitted and sanctioned by the Governmental authorities, and that therefore a marriage without such sanction must be deemed to be invalid. I am unable to agree with that contention. If a child marriage is sanctioned by the proper authorities the penal provisions of the Act may not come into play. I agree with the learned Subordinate Judge that the marriage of the plaintiff with the defendant is not invalid even assuming that it was one which offended the provisions of the Child Marriage Restraint Act.

9. The defendant was a minor on the date of the marriage. It was therefore contended on his behalf by his learned counsel that the marriage was invalid under Hindu law as there was no proof of his father