Marriage With Minor Girl Not Void U/S 11 Of Hindu Marriage Act: Karnataka High Court

A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty observed that Section 11 of the Act, which defines 'Void marriages', does not include legal age of marriage as a pre-condition. It thus set aside the family court order dated 08.01.2005 saying “Section 11 of the Act has no application to the fact situation of the case.”

As per the appeal the marriage was solemnised on 15.06.2012. It was the case of the respondent (Husband) before the trial court that after the marriage he discovered that the date of birth of the appellant is 06.09.1995 and therefore, she was minor at the time of marriage. Hence he filed a petition on 30.08.2012 under Section 11 of the Act seeking a declaration that the marriage is a nullity on the ground that the appellant was minor at the time of marriage.

The family court held that on the date of marriage, the appellant was aged 16 years 11 months 8 days and had not completed 18 years as prescribed under Section 5(iii) of the Act. Thus it concluded the marriage is void under Section 11 of the Act and declared the marriage as null and void.

The bench referred to Section 5 (iii) of the Act which prescribes that one of the conditions to a Hindu Marriage is the bridegroom has completed the age of twenty-one years and the bride, the age of eighteen years at the time of the marriage.

Then it noted that section 11 of the Act deals with void marriages which provides that any marriage solemnised after the commencement of the Act, shall be void and the Court may on the petition presented by either of the parties thereto, declare the same to be a nullity if it contravenes the provisions of Clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5 of the Act.

The court said “It is evident that clause (iii) of Section 5 of the Act which provides that the bride has to be 18 years of age at the time of marriage, has been omitted from the purview of Section 11 of the Act.”

Accordingly it allowed the petition.

Case Title: XXX And ABC

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1493 OF 2015

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (kar) 23

Date of Order: 12-01-2023

Appearance: Advocate Sunil S Rao for appellant.

Advocate Manjula P V for respondent