JUDGMENT

1. This is a wife’s appeal under section 19 of the Family Courts Act 1984, against the judgment and decree dated 13th April 2018, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rewa in Civil Suit No.48-A/2015, by which the petition of the respondent-husband under section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 [hereinafter in short “the Act of 1955”] has been allowed and the marriage solemnized between the parties has been declared as null and void.

2. Some of the admitted facts for the decision of the present appeal are as under :-

(i) On 18.5.2014, the marriage between the parties was solemnized at village Khandora, Tahsil Deosar, District Singrauli (M.P) according to Hindu rites and rituals.

(ii) The appellant-wife had already been married in the year 1984 as per Hindu rites and rituals with one Amarjeet Pandey, when she was only aged about 8-10 years.

(iii) The marriage of appellant-wife with her earlier husband Amarjeet Pandey, was dissolved on 15.7.2015 (Ex-D-7) vide judgment and decree under section 13(B) of the Act of 1955, passed by Additional District Judge Deosar, District Singrauli.

(iv) On 14.5.2015, the respondent-husband preferred a petition under section 11 of the Act of 1955, before the Family Court for declaring the marriage with the appellant as null and void on the ground that the same is in contravention of section 5 (i) of the Act of 1955, as on the date of marriage, the appellant had a living spouse which has been decreed by the impugned judgment and decree, hence this appeal is presented by wife.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-wife has mainly raised the following grounds:-

(i) The earlier marriage of appellant with Amarjeet Pandey, was very much in the knowledge of the respondent-husband and despite the said fact, the marriage was solemnized, therefore, the respondent can not subsequently take the plea of earlier marriage.

(ii) According to section 5(iii) of the Act 1955, for any legal marriage, the age of bride and bridegroom must be 18 and 21 years respectively at the time of marriage. Since in the instant case, the marriage of the appellant in the year 1984 was solemnized when she was only aged about 8-10 years, therefore, such illegal marriage cannot be construed to be a valid marriage in the eye of law.

(iii) On the date of the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.4.2018, the earlier so called marriage of the year 1984 was already dissolved by the competent Court under section 13 (B) of the Act of 1955 by judgment and decree dated 15.7.2015 (Ex-D-7) and, therefore, on the date of passing of the impugned judgment and decree, there was no living spouse of the appellant.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband has vehemently contradicted the submissions made by the appellant-wife and has made the following submissions:-

(i) The respondent was not aware of the fact of earlier marriage of the appellant with Amarjeet Pandey and even otherwise also, such knowledge is immaterial in view of the specific provision of sections 11 and 5 (i) of the Act of 1955.

(ii) The requirement of provision of section 5 (i) of the Act of 1955 is that neither of the party should have a living spouse at the time of marriage between two Hindus and the consequences of contravention of the provision of section 5(i) of the Act of 1955, is very much prescribed in section 11 of the Act of 1955, which says that any such marriage solemnized after the commencement of the Act shall be null and void on a petition presented by either party there to against the other party.

(iii) The fact of declaring the earlier marriage of the appellant as dissolved vide judgment and decree dated 15.7.2015 (Ex-D-7) further strengthen his case and proves beyond doubt that on the date of marriage of the respondent with the appellant i.e. on 18.5.2014, the appellant had a living spouse.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The following questions arise for our considerat