Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The Court proposes to examine and answer the questions formulated as pure propositions of law and then examine the way answers to those questions bear on the facts of the case.

12. Section 5 of the HMA stipulates conditions that ought to be fulfilled in order to solemnize a marriage between two Hindus. Section 11 of the HMA spells out what kind of marriages would be void, whereas Section 12 details those marriages that would be voidable, and also limitations on the right of a party to seek annulment of a marriage, claimed to be voidable. Much of those statutory provisions are not relevant to the issue in hand, for those deal with many a different contingency, besides the one of concern here. A reading of Section 5 (iii) of the HMA would show that one of the conditions to be fulfilled for a marriage to be solemnized between two Hindus is that the bridegroom should have completed the age of 21 years, and the bride, the age of 18 years at the time of marriage. Section 11 of the HMA makes marriages held in contravention of clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5 void, but not marriages held in violation of clause (iii) of Section 5. Sub-section (1) of Section 12, spells out contingencies, where a Hindu marriage may be annulled by a decree of nullity. Clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 enumerate those grounds that afford a cause of action to the party aggrieved to seek annulment. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 specifies clause (ii) of Section 5 as one carrying a condition, the contravention whereof would render a marriage voidable on a petition for a decree of nullity. A plain reading of Sections 5, 11 and 12 of the HMA do not indicate the consequences that would attach to a marriage solemnized in breach of Section 5 (iii). However, Section 18 (a) of the HMA provides that a person who "procures a marriage for himself or herself to be solemnized under this Act in contravention of the conditions specified in clause (iii), ..... of Section 5" becomes liable to rigorous imprisonment that may extend to two years, with or without fine, the fine imposable being a maximum of Rs. One lakh. It is on the terms of these statutory provisions that Mr. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shukla and Mr. Yadav, the two learned Amicus Curiae appearing in the matter, have urged that the marriage would not be void under Section 5 (iii) of the HMA, though all of them say that it would be either void or voidable, depending on the circumstances attending the marriage, under Sections 3(1) and 12 of the PCMA.

15. As regards differential treatment to the validity of a marriage between minors, if the conditions mentioned under Section 12 of the PCMA exist and if they do not, according to the learned A.G.A., would make little difference for an answer to the question involved here. He urges that the PCMA is a Statute of universal application to all persons within the territory of India and to the citizens of India beyond the Indian shores, irrespective of religion, whereas the HMA is applicable to a Hindu, as defined under Section 2, whether resident in India or domiciled in territories to which the HMA extends, but are outside those territories. He submits that if a marriage is void under Section 5 of the HMA for the violation of clause (iii) thereof, Sections 12 and 3 (1) of the PCMA would not, at all, come into play. He further says that since a marriage in contravention of Section 5 (iii) of the HMA is void in the case of two Hindus, Sections 12 and 3 (1) of the PCMA would not, at all, be attracted.

16. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for parties, as well as the learned Amicus Curiae appearing in the matter. No doubt, the provisions of Section 5 of the HMA spell out conditions, subject to which, a marriage may be solemnized between two Hindus, but the provisions under Sections 4, 5, 11, 12 and 18 have to be read as an integrated whole, in order to find out the conditions, subject to which, marriage between two Hindus may be solemnized, and if solemnized in breach of one or the other or more than one of the conditions laid down by the Statute, the consequences that would attach to the validity of that marriage. So far as the HMA is concerned, the scheme of the Statute across Sections 4, 5, 11, 12 and 18 is unambiguous in that, that while it requires the age of 18 years for a woman and 21 years for a man to be a condition precedent for a valid marriage between two Hindus, the consequences of violation of one or the other clauses of Section 5 of the HMA stipulated under Sections 11 and 12 do not provide for the violation of Clause (iii), that is to say, the condition regarding minimum age for a valid Hindu marriage. This conscious omission about consequence of a violation of the minimum age clause on the validity of a Hindu marriage is no casus omissus. The legislature, after providing for the consequences of a violation of the conditions specified in Clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5 under Section 11, is conspicuously silent about the contingency of a breach of Clause (iii). The legislature has provided for penal consequences under Section 18 (a) of the HMA, where a term imprisonment or fine or both are provided; but the validity of a Hindu marriage solemnized in breach of Section 5(iii) has been left intact by the HMA. So far as Section 5(iii) of the HMA is concerned, read in the context of that statute, there is good authority and for good reason to hold that a Hindu marriage, solemnized in violation of Section 5(iii) is neither void nor voidable. There are pertinent remarks to that effect, to be found in the decision of a Full Bench of Madras High Court in T. Sivakumar v. Inspector of Police of Theravallur3 where it has been held :