FACTS
- The case involved two criminal revision petitions and one criminal miscellaneous petition,respectively. Since both these matters raise a common point of law, both of them were placed before the Full Bench
- In the criminal revision case Petitioner No. 1 was convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajam, for an offence punishable under Section 494 I. P. C. and petitioner No. 2 was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 109, I. P. C. Both of them were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both of them filed appeals and the appellate Court confirmed the convictions of both the petitioners, but modified their sentences to that of payment of Rs 200/- and in default of payment of fine, each of the petitioners was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Against their convictions and sentences, the petitioners came by way of revision to this High Court.In the revision application came up before the High Court the reliance was placed by the petitioners on P.A. Saramma v. G. Ganapatulu[AIR 1975 AP 193]. wherein, the Division Bench has held that a marriage, which is in contravention of Clause (iii) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act is void ab initio and is no marriage in the eye of law.
- In the criminal Miscellaneous Petition Ist respondent, the wife filed a criminal complaint, in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siddipet, against her husband (Ist petitioner) and ten others alleging that her husband had committed an offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Panel Code and that the other accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 109 I. P. C. According to the petitioner in this petition, at the time of the marriage i.e. in the year 1959 he was 13 years of age and the Ist respondent was 9 years of age. The husband contends that in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in P.A. Saramma v. G. Ganapatulu, the marriage between him and the Ist respondent was void ab initio and was no marriage in the eye of law and hence the action of the Ist petitioner in marrying a girl did not amount to an offence punishable under Section 494. Under these circumstances, in this criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioners prayed that the prosecution on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Magistrate, Siddipet, be quashed
ISSUES
- Whether a marriage conducted in contravention of Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act is void ab initio.
- Whether the conviction under Section 494 IPC was justified given the circumstances of the marriage.
RATIO DECIDENDI
- Void Ab Initio vs. Validity of Marriage: The court ruled that a marriage solemnized in contravention of Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which establishes the minimum marriage age, is not void ab initio. This means that even if the legal age criteria are not met, the marriage remains lawful. The court noted that while violations of the Act are penalized, they do not make the marriage itself null and void.
- Rejection of Previous Precedents: The Full Bench specifically reversed the earlier finding in P.A. Saramma v. Ganapatulu, which declared that marriages that violated Section 5(iii) were void ab initio. The court reasoned that accepting this position would have serious consequences for children born from such marriages, perhaps designating them as illegitimate, which contradicts the objective of the statute to protect innocent children.
- Doctrine of Factum Valet: The court used the doctrine of factum valet, which states that a fact (in this case, marriage) cannot be nullified by subsequent legal prohibitions. Thus, even if the marriage violated legislative provisions, it remained a recognized and enforceable union.
- Legal Consequences and Punishments: The court observed that, while Section 18 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides punishments for violations (such as fines or jail), it does not say that such violations invalidate the marriage itself. This emphasizes the gap between criminal culpability for marrying minors and the legal status of such marriages.
- Implications for Child Marriages: The decision underscored a broader societal concern regarding child marriages, emphasizing that while they are legally punishable, they should not affect the legitimacy of children born from these unions. This reflects a protective stance towards children and aims to prevent them from being unjustly categorized as illegitimate due to their parents' actions
JUDGEMENT
The Full Bench of the High Court held that the previous ruling in P.A. Saramma v. G. Ganapatulu was not consistent with the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, and emphasized that a marriage, even if it violates age requirements, does not render it void ab initio, but rather punishable under specific sections of law.
- The court recognized many crucial points:
The doctrine of factum valet applies; hence, a marriage that has been solemnized cannot be annulled just because it violates legal age restrictions.
- The Child Marriage Restraint Act does not declare such weddings invalid, but it does impose sanctions on individuals who engage in child marriages.
- The court wanted to protect children born from such marriages from being classified as illegitimate, retaining their legitimacy under Sections 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Finally, the court affirmed the convictions but changed the penalties, reflecting a more nuanced understanding of marriage rules and their impact on individual rights and cultural values.
CONCLUSION
The case had a significant impact on how child marriages are perceived legally in India, emphasizing that while such weddings are subject to fines under the law, they are not automatically dissolved due to age breaches, therefore safeguarding the legitimacy of offspring from these unions.