Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. According to the facts proven before the learned trial court, the appellant was born on 07.08.1992 whereas the respondent was born on 01.01.1995. On 28.11.2004, the date of their marriage, the appellant was about 12 years of age whereas the respondent was about 9 years of age. They would have attained the age of 18 years in the year 2010 and 2013, respectively. On 05.07.2013, claiming benefit of Section 3 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PCMA'), the appellant filed the above-described suit at age 20 years 10 months and 28 days. Initially, the suit was instituted under Section 12 (2) of the HMA. Later, upon amendment being allowed, direct relief was claimed under Section 3 of the PCMA. Relying on Section 2(a) of PCMA- that defines "child" and thus prescribes the age requirement for a valid marriage (like that provided under Section 5(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- hereinafter referred to as the 'HMA'), the appellant claimed that his suit, thus filed, was within the limitation prescribed under Section 3(3) of PCMA. Other fact grounds were also pleaded to allege that the respondent never cohabited, etc.

5. The learned Court below has categorically found that the marriage solemnised between the parties was a "child marriage" under PCMA. Yet, it has sustained the objections raised and has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant, primarily on the reasoning that prior to institution of the present proceeding, the appellant had instituted a divorce suit proceeding being Matrimonial Case No. 1110 of 2011, under Section 13 of HMA, on 17.09.2011. Though it was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 8 on 19.05.2012 the learned Court below has reasoned - by filing the divorce suit, the appellant had elected to confirm his "child marriage". Further, no second suit may have been filed thereafter for the declaration sought. Then, conditions prescribed under section 12(2) of HMA have been found, not fulfilled. Also, the suit has been found instituted outside limitation. As to Section 3 PCMA, it has been held on his own showing the appellant had earlier pleaded, he wanted to live in matrimony with the respondent and that the parties cohabited for some time. Hence, their marriage is valid.

34. Last, it has been submitted, the original suit was filed under Section 12 of the HMA with no reference to Section 3 of the PCMA. That suit remained pending till after the appellant attained the age of 23 years. Thereafter, for the first time, an amendment application was filed to describe the suit as one filed with reference to Section 3 of the PCMA. Therefore, in his submission, the suit seeking declaration of marriage to be void, was filed after the appellant attained the age of 23 years. It was time barred.