FAO No. 911-2021

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

FAO No. 911 of 2021

Date of decision 21.09.2021

Mamta

...Appellant

Vs.

Rohan Verma

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

Present:

Mr. A.P.S. Guliani, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Harshit Jain, Advocate, for the respondent.

***

Ritu Bahri, J. (Oral)

The appellant as well as respondent are aggrieved by an order

dated 08.01.2021 whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District

Ludhiana has dismissed the petition filed under Section 13-B of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955.

The brief facts of the present case are that the marriage between

the parties was solemnized on 06.08.2006 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.

One male child namely Krishna @ Krishu was born out of this wedlock. At

the time of marriage i.e. on 06.08.2006, the appellant (wife) was major

because her date of birth was 04.12.1985 as per Aadhar Card (Mark-C).

Whereas the respondent (husband) was minor on the date of marriage i.e. on

06.08.2006 because her date of birth was 01.12.1985 as per Aadhar Card

(Mark-A). Both the parties continued to live together and cohabited as

husband and wife till 22-11-2017.

The grievance of the parties is that they had filed a joint petition

under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of

GAURAV ARORA

2021.12.20 10:33

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

FAO No. 911-2021

2

marriage by way of decree of divorce by mutual consent before the learned

Family Court on 23.01.2020. However, the learned Family Court dismissed

their joint petition, vide judgment and decree dated 08.01.2021 by observing

that the marriage of the parties was not a valid marriage as the respondent

(husband) had not completed the age of 21 years as per the mandate of Section

5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, vide which the parties were required to

fulfill the basic condition of the said Section.

The Family Court had referred to a judgment passed by the

Madras High Court in Prema Kumari Vs. M. Palani, 2013 (6) RCR (Civil)

2953 and held that parties were required to get their marriage nullified as per

Section 13(2)(iv) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

In the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the matter

has been amicably settled between the parties before the Mediation Centre of

this Court, vide compromise deed dated 05.12.2019 (P-2). It was agreed that

they will file a joint mutual divorce petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu

Marriage Act. The respondent has agreed to pay Rs.1,80,000/- to the

appellant towards permanent alimony, past and future maintenance apart from

returning all the stridhan of the appellant. The appellant-wife has further

agreed that she will withdraw all the cases filed by her against the respondent-

husband.

Reference at this stage can be made to a Full Bench judgment of

Delhi High Court in Court on its own Motion (Lajja Devi) Vs. State, 2012 (4)

R.C.R. (Civil) 821 where the girl eloped with the boy and married him. A case

under Sections 363 and 376 IPC was registered against the accused husband

and the issue was whether FIR can be quashed on the basis of the statement of

GAURAV ARORA

2021.12.20 10:33

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

FAO No. 911-2021

3

such a minor that she had contracted the marriage on her own. While referring

to Sections 5(iii), 11 and 12 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Sections 2 and

3 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, the Delhi High Court

observed that if a marriage contracted with a female of less than 18 years or a

male of less than 21 years, would not be a void marriage but voidable one,

which would become valid if no steps are taken by such “child” within the

meaning of Section 2(a) of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006

s