Madhya Pradesh High Court: In an appeal filed by the appellant (wife) under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act) challenging the District Judge’s order dismissing her suit, seeking a decree declaring her marriage as void or voidable, a Division bench of Vivek Rusia* and Binod Kumar Dwivedi, JJ., held that marriage of a minor girl to an adult can cause mental and physical cruelty as she was not ready to perform the marital obligations, thereby, providing another ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Act and declared the marriage between the appellant and the respondent null and void.
The appellant’s marriage to the respondent (husband) was solemnized on 21-05-2009, following Hindu customs. At the time of the marriage, the appellant was 15 years old. The appellant lived with her husband post-marriage, but the marriage was not consummated. She later discovered the respondent’s partial blindness, which led to her seeking a decree of nullity. The appellant filed a suit before District Court, Ujjain seeking nullity of the marriage under Sections 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), citing the respondent’s blindness in one eye, a fact she claimed was concealed from her.
The District Court dismissed the appellant’s suit and held that the marriage could not be declared void or voidable under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act since the breach of Clause (iii) of Section 5 (age-related condition) was not included in these provisions. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the District Court, the appellant filed the present appeal challenging the same.
The appellant argued that the marriage was neither consummated nor valid, as it violated the age requirements under Section 5 of the Act, therefore, marriage should be declared void or voidable. The appellant cited Section 3 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, which renders child marriages voidable at the option of the minor contracting party. Additionally, the appellant argued that the blindness of the respondent was fraudulently concealed. The appellant relied on precedents such as Independent Thought v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 800 and T. Sivakumar v. Inspector of Police, Thiruvallur Town Police Station, 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 1722, emphasising that child marriages are voidable but not void. However, the respondent denied knowledge of the appellant’s age and stated that she had left to live with her parents and was no longer interested in continuing the marriage.
The Court acknowledged that the marriage was performed when the appellant was a minor and the respondent was blind in one eye. The Court noted that under Section 3 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, a child marriage can be voidable at the option of the minor contracting party. The Court stated that the lower court erred by focusing solely on the Act without considering the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
The Court asserted that the appellant, as a minor, should have filed for annulment under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act instead of relying solely on Sections 11 and 12 of Act, due to ignorance of the law. The Court further noted that marriage to a minor can cause mental and physical cruelty as she was not ready to perform the marital obligations, providing another ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Act.
“It is a case of cruelty also, the marriage of a minor girl with a major male will cause mental as well as physical cruelty as she was not ready to perform the marital obligations, therefore, under Section 13 of HMA also she could have claimed the divorce from the husband / respondent.”
The Court affirmed that child marriages are voidable Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, and cruelty could also be grounds for divorce under Section 13 of the Act as marriage to a minor can cause mental and physical cruelty as she was not ready to perform the marital obligations. The Court set aside the judgment of the Additional District Judge and declared the marriage between the appellant and the respondent null and void.
[X v. Y, 2024 SCC OnLine MP 5315, Decided on 22-08-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Vivek Rusia
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Sudeep Bhargava, Counsel for the Appellant
Shri Anirudh Saxena, Counsel for the Respondent