( 1 ) THE judgment in this appeal shall also dispose of first appeal No. 66 of 1963.

( 2 ) FACTS relevant for our purpose are as follows. Mohanmurari and Smt. Kusumkumari were married at Gwalior on 20th June 1957. Their gauna was performed on or about 19th November 1957. The wife Smt. Kusum Kumari came to her parents' house some time in January 1958 and has not gone to her husband's house since. In November 1962, the husband Mohanmurari filed a suit against the wife Smt. Kusumkumari for restitution of conjugal rights, on the allegation that she had been staying at her father's place without any reasonable cause. The wife Smt. Kusumkumari denied the claim of her husband but claimed an annulment of her marriage with Mohanmurari on the allegation that he was impotent at the time of her marriage with him and had continued to be so till the institution of the suit.

( 3 ) THE trial Court dismissed the husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights but decreed the suit of the wife annulling the marriage between Mohanmurari and smt. Kusumkumari on the ground of the former's impotency.

( 4 ) AGAINST the aforesaid judgments and decrees the husband Mohanmurari filed first Appeals Nos. 65 and 66 of 1963 on 5-10-1968. During the pendency of these appeals, the respondent wife Smt. Kusumkumari, on 20-1-1964, married one banarasidas Saxena of Morena, and then on 2-7-1964 applied for dismissal of the appeals as infructuous.

( 5 ) THE question is whether the re-marriage of the respondent wife with Banarsidas during the pendency of these appeals rendered the appeals infructuous.

( 6 ) THE appellant husband Mohanmurari by these appeals seeks to challenge the order or the trial Court annulling his marriage with the respondent Smt. Kusumkumari, as also the order refusing his prayer for restitution of conjugal rights, Consequently, if, for some reason, these prayers cannot be granted, by reason of the respondent's remarriage with Banarsidas, the appeals shall have to be dismissed as infructuous.

( 7 ) THE Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 classifies marriages as void, voidable, and valid. Under Section 11 of the Act, 'any marriage solemnized after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void and may, on a petition presented by either party thereto, be so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes any of the conditions specified in Clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5'; while under Section 12 of the Act, 'any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable, and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the grounds mentioned in the section'. Where the law, on grounds of public policy, has prohibited certain marriages, the marriages are declared to be void. These marriages aw simply empty ceremonies, mere form without any substance and do not confer on the marrying spouses the status of a husband or wife. These are, therefore, said to be void ab initio, as if no marriage in law had taken place. On the other hand, voidable marriages are valid until avoided. The legislature has sought to separate the religious character of the sacrament, which a Hindu marriage essentially is, from its so-called secular character because, in the orthodex concept, even its secular character had a religious aspect. In its secular aspect, the essential object of a marriage is a free physical union of two persons as husband and wife for the purpose of procreation. Consequently, where impediment existed at the time of the marriage which may hamper this object, the law permits its avoidance by the parties to it if they or any of them so choose. Thus, impotency from the date of marriage till the date of the petition and idiocy or lunacy at the time of marriage permit its avoidance. So also, the case of marriage where consent was obtained by force or fraud or where the woman was pregnant at the time of her marriage. But, such marriages can be avoided only subject to certain limitations prescribed in the Act. W