FACTS
The appellant married the respondent wife in a temple, by exchange of thali, on the 24th of October 1996. Subsequently, this marriage was registered on the 2nd of November under Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
However, a few months later, the respondent wife filed a petition in the Family Court of Vishakapatnam under Section 12(1)(c) of Hindu Marriage Act, for a decree of nullity of the marriage. This was essentially on the grounds of misrepresentation by the appellant regarding his social status and the fact that he was a Hindu in religion – he was in fact a Roman Catholic Christian.
When the Family Court dismissed the petition, the respondent wife appealed to the High Court, which allowed the appeal. However, it held that the marriage was invalid not under Section 12(1)(c) but under Section 11. In other words, a marriage between a Hindu and a Christian was held to be void ab initio.
A few months later, the respondent married another man, after which the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court.
CONTENTION
Appellant
The appellant claimed that the Hindu Marriage Act did not prohibit a marriage between a Hindu and a non-Hindu. He also argued that because Section 5 (dealing with the conditions for a marriage between any two Hindus) made use of the word “may”, the conditions stated were not mandatory and must be held to be optional.
Respondent
The respondent submitted that the Preamble to the Act itself indicated that the Act and its provisions applied to Hindus and Hindus only. It is as follows: “An act to amend and codify the law relating to marriage among Hindus”.
Further, Section 2(1)(c) specifically excludes Christians from the ambit of this law.
ISSUE
Whether a marriage between a Hindu and a Christian is valid under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
HELD
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and concurred with the reasoning of the respondent’s argument. It held that the Preamble, Section 2 and Section 5 made it clear that the Act applies only to Hindus. Usage of the word “may” in the opening line of Section 5 does not make its provisions optional. It only indicates that a marriage can be solemnized between two Hindus if the conditions are fulfilled. It is not directory but mandatory and depends only on the conditions being fulfilled. Further, while the marriage of a Hindu to a non-Hindu was permitted, this can only be carried out as per the provisions of the Special Marriage Act.
Thus, the appeal was dismissed and the marriage held to be nullified.