Citations: Pinninti Venkataramana & Anr. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, 1976 SCC OnLine AP
Date of Judgement: 09/07/1976
Equivalent citations: AIR 1977 AP 43
Case No: Criminal Revision No. 190/75
Case Type: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B Divan, Hon’ble A Kuppuswami and Hon’ble Muktadar
Appellant: Pinninti Venkatarama & Anr.
Respondent: State of Andhra Pradesh
Statutes Referred:
- Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 109, 494
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1995; Section 5, 11, 12, 17,18
Cases Referred:
- Venkatacharyulu Vs Rangacharyulu (12891) ILR 14 Mad 316;
- Sivanandy Vs Bhagavathyamma AIR 1964 Mad 237;
- P.A. Saramma Vs G. Ganapatulu (1975);
- R. Pallamsetti Vs D. Sriramulu AIR 1968 375;
- Krishni Devi Vs Tulsan Devi AIR 1972 P H 305;
- Mohinder Kaur Vs Major Singh AIR 1972 P H 184;
- Mt. Kalawati Vs Devi Ram AIR 1961 HP 7;
- Premi Vs Daya Ram AIR 1965 HP 15;
- Naumi Vs Narotam AIR 1963 HP 15;
- Krishni Devi Vs Tulsan Devi AIR 1972 P.H 305;
- Khurshid Begum Vs Abdul Rashid, AIR 1926 Nag 234.
Facts:
- In this ongoing case Petitioners No. 1 & No. 2 were convicted by a Judicial First-Class Magistrate. Both were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month. The sentences were later modified thereto of payment of Rs.200/-. They have appealed against their convictions and sentences; the Petitioners came by way of revision to High Court.
- The previous Court held that the marriage was legal, so he was convicted for marrying again.
- During this case it was stated that the wife filed a complaint against her husband and ten others, alleging that the husband committed the offence under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and that the other ten were involved.
- Husband stated that he was 13 years old at the time of the marriage, in 1949, and the wife was nine years of age.
- Thus, the marriage between him and 1st respondent i.e., wife was void ab initio and there was no marriage in the eye of law because of the decision of the Division Bench of the Court in P.A Saramma Vs G. Ganapatulu.
- Since the marriage was void ab initio so he was not liable under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code, 1960.
Issues Involved:
- Whether the marriage was void ab initio or not?
- Whether the husband and his relatives shall be liable under the Section 494 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 or not?
Contention of Petitioner:
The counsel for Petitioner contended that:
- Husband was 13 years of age, and wife was 9 years of age when they were married.
- According to the husband, the marriage between him and the 1st respondent was void ab initio and no marriage in the eyes of the law. Thus, the action in marrying a girl did not amount to an offence punishable under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Contention of Respondent:
The counsel for Respondent’s contended that:
- The wife filed a complaint against her husband, stating that the husband and his relatives committed the offence under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code,1860.
Judgement:
The Appeal was dismissed.
The Court of Appeal has ruled that according to the Section 5(iii) and 11 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1976 and the marriage between husband and wife is legal and was not void ab initio and they shall be liable under Section 18 as well as under Section 13(2)(iv) of Hindu Marriage Act.
Hence, the husband’s appeal against conviction was dismissed because he had committed an offence under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Ratio Decidendi:
- In this case the High Court held that the marriage is legal and void ab initio. The court interpreted that the Hindu Marriage Act has been amended to allow a wife to seek divorce if her marriage was solemnised before she reached the age of fifteen years and she repudiated it after attaining the age of fifteen years but before attaining the age majority.
- As a result, the wife has the option to repudiate the marriage under Section 13(2) (iv) of Hindu Marriage Act. Husband’s appeal filed against the conviction was dismissed because he had committed an offence under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Conclusion:
The Appellate Court emphasized the meaning void and voidable marriage. If the marriage solemnized between the parties attaining below of their respective ages prescribed in Section 5 of clause (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act is neither void or voidable. In this case the marriage is legal and was void ab initio as a result that wife has the option to repudiate the marriage under Section 13 (2) (iv) of Hindu Marriage Act.
Hence the husband’s appeal filed against the conviction was dismissed because he had committed an offence under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Drafted By: Samanta Rao, CLS – Gitarattan International Business School
Edited by: Aashima Kakkar, Associate Editor, Law Insider
Published On: October 3, 2021 at 15:56 IST