- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Durjyodhan Pridhan v. Bengabati Dei .
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff filed a suit for maintenance claiming to be the legally married wife of the defendant. She stated that after their marriage in April 1967, she lived with the defendant for two years before he ill-treated, assaulted, and ultimately drove her away from his house in 1969. The defendant later married another woman, Sashi alias Jibani Dei, in March 1972, with whom he currently resides. The defendant denied ever marrying or living with the plaintiff and claimed his marriage to Sashi Dei was his first after the death of his first wife. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, holding her to be the defendant’s legally married wife entitled to maintenance. The defendant appealed against this finding.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the plaintiff was legally married to the defendant.
- Whether a marriage contracted when the bride is below 15 years of age, in contravention of Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, is valid and enforceable for the purpose of maintenance.
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to maintenance and expenses for separate residence from the defendant.
Arguments of the Parties
Defendant's Arguments
- The defendant contended that he never married the plaintiff nor lived with her.
- He argued that the plaintiff’s alleged marriage is invalid as she was only 12 years old at the time, thus contravening Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act requiring the bride to be at least 15 years old.
- He maintained that contravention of Section 5(iii) invalidates the marriage, making the plaintiff not entitled to maintenance.
Court's Position on Plaintiff's Arguments
- The plaintiff asserted that she was legally married and lived with the defendant for a few years before being driven away.
- She claimed entitlement to maintenance and expenses for separate residence based on the defendant’s subsequent marriage and cohabitation with another woman.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| ILR (1970) Cut 1215, Budhi Sahu v. Lohurani Sahuani | Validity of marriage below prescribed age under Section 5(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act and entitlement to maintenance under Section 488 CrPC | Affirmed that contravention of Section 5(iii) does not invalidate marriage; marriage remains enforceable for maintenance claims. |
| AIR 1976 Madhya Pradesh 83, Gindan v. Barelal | Endorsement of the principle that marriage below prescribed age is valid and enforceable despite contravention of Section 5(iii) | Division Bench approved the view that such marriages are not null and void under Sections 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. |
| AIR 1965 Himachal Pradesh 15, Mst. Premi v. Daya Ram | Validity of underage marriage and its legal consequences | Supported the view that underage marriage is valid despite contravention of age requirement. |
| AIR 1963 Himachal Pradesh 15, Smt. Naumi v. Narotam | Same as above | Reinforced the principle regarding validity of underage marriage. |
| (1970) 72 Punjab LR 377, Mohinder Kaur v. Major Singh | Validity of marriage below age prescribed under Hindu Marriage Act | Supported the continuing validity of such marriages for legal purposes. |
| 1969 All LJ 623, Mst. Mahari v. Director of Consolidation | Validity of underage marriage | Affirmed the principle that contravention of Section 5(iii) does not render marriage null and void. |
| AIR 1975 Andhra Pradesh 193, P.A Suramma v. G. Ganapatlu | Contrary view on validity of underage marriage | Court disagreed with this precedent as it did not consider Sections 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. |
| AIR 1968 Andhra Pradesh 375, Rayudu Palamsetti v. Dommeti Sriramulu | Contrary view on validity of underage marriage | Rejected by the court for ignoring relevant provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court carefully assessed the evidence concerning the marriage and found the plaintiff's evidence more convincing than the defendant's. It held that the plaintiff was legally married to the defendant before his subsequent marriage to Sashi Dei. Addressing the defendant's contention regarding the plaintiff’s age at marriage, the court clarified that contravention of Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act (minimum age requirement) does not render the marriage null and void. Instead, such contravention may attract punishment under Section 18 but does not affect the validity or enforceability of the marriage. The court relied on several precedents supporting this interpretation and distinguished contrary decisions that failed to consider Sections 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. On these grounds, the court affirmed the plaintiff’s entitlement to maintenance and expenses for separate residence from the defendant.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is DISMISSED, confirming the lower court's decision that the plaintiff is the legally married wife of the defendant and entitled to maintenance of Rs. 40 per month and Rs. 10 per month for separate residence.
The direct effect of this decision is the upholding of the plaintiff's right to maintenance despite the plaintiff’s age at marriage being below 15 years. No new precedent was created; the court reaffirmed existing legal principles concerning the validity of underage marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act and their enforceability for maintenance purposes. Both parties were ordered to bear their own costs in this appeal.
1. The defendant in a suit for maintenance has preferred with appeal.
2. The plaintiff's case, in short, is that she is the legally married wife of the defendant; after her marriage in April, 1967, she stayed with the defendant for two years; thereafter the defendant ill-treated and assaulted her; and at last drove her away from his house in 1969 and never allowed her to stay in his house. In March, 1972, the defendant again married another woman named Sashi alias Jibani Dei, with whom the defendant is still staying as husband and wife in his house.
3. The defendant's case is that he never married the plaintiff nor lived with her in his house for any time. According to him, after the death of his first wife Nayana alias Gouri Dei, his mother, on the persuasion of the plaintiff's mother and sister, insisted on him to marry the plaintiff, but as he did not agree to the said proposal and married Sashi Dei. His mother and sister were displeased and annoyed with him and so his mother left his house and since that time she is staying in the house of her daughter.
4. The court below on a discussion and consideration of the evidence on record has arrived at the finding that the plaintiff is the legally married wife of the defendant and after marriage she stayed in the house of the defendant for a few years. On that finding and on the defendant's admission that he has married one Sashi Dei and is living with her as husband and wife, the court holds that the plaintiff is entitled to get maintenance and reasonable expenses for her separate residence from the defendant. On a consideration of the plaintiff's financial condition as disclosed in the evidence on record, the court below has ordered that the defendant has to pay Rs. 40/- per month towards the maintenance of the plaintiff and Rs. 10/- per month towards her separate resident.
5. Mr. D.K Mohapatra, the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant, urges that the finding of the court that the plaintiff is the legally married wife of the defendant is incorrect and is against the weight of the evidence on record.
(After discussing evidence of marriage adduced on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant in this para and para 6, the judgment proceeded:)
6. On a careful assessment of the evidence on record I find that the evidence of marriage adduced on behalf of the plaintiff is more convincing thin that adduced by the defendant to rebut that fact. I, therefore, agree with the finding of the court below that the plaintiff has been able to establish that she was legally married to the defendant prior to the defendant's marriage with Sashi Dei, who now admittedly is living with the defendant as his wife.
7. Mr. Mohapatra contends that on the admitted case of the plaintiff that she married the defendant when she was only 12 years old, the said alleged marriage cannot be treated as a legal marriage as it contravenes one of the conditions for valid marriage laid down in Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Mr. Mohapatra contends that as the plaintiff had not attained the age of 15 years as provided under Section 5 (iii) of the said Act, the alleged marriage is not a valid marriage, and so the plaintiff is not entitled to any maintenance from the defendant. Contravention of clause (iii) of Section 5 does not vitiate the marriage as that is not one of the conditions on which a marriage becomes null and void as provided under Section 11 of the said Act.
8. The contravention of the provision of clause (iii) of Section 5 of the Act may only result in the punishment of the marrying spouses as prescribed in Section 18 thereof, but the marriage between them below the age mentioned in Section 5 (iii) will continue to be valid in law and enforceable in court, and will not become null and void, as contended by Mr. Mohapatra. In a case for maintenance under Section 488 of the Cr PC (ILR (1970) Cut 1215, Budhi Sahu v. Lohurani Sahuani) I have taken the same view. My view was referred to with approval in the Division Bench decision reported in AIR 1976 Madh Pra 83 (Gindan v. Barelal). The same view on this point has been taken in the decisions reported in AIR 1965 Him Pra 15 (Mst. Premi… v. Daya Ram….); AIR 1963 Him Pra 15 (Smt. Naumi v. Narotam); (1970) 72 Pun LR 377 (Mohinder Kaur… v. Major Singh….) and 1969 All LJ 623 (Mst. Mahari v. Director of Consolidation).
9. With respect I am unable to agree with the contrary view taken in the decisions reported in AIR 1975 Andh Pra 193 (P.A Suramma v. G. Ganapatlu) and AIR 1968 Andh Pra 375 (Rayudu Palamsetti v. Dommeti Sriramulu) cited by Mr. Mohapatra, as in the said decisions the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act were not taken into consideration. The learned Judges, who decided the case reported in AIR 1976 Madh Pra 83 (supra), have expressly dissented from the above-mentioned two decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
10. On my above finding that the plaintiff was the legally married wife of the defendant and on the admitted fact that the defendant has again married one Sashi Dei and she is at present living with him, the plaintiff is entitled to get maintenance and expenses for her separate residence from the defendant.
(On considering the facts and circumstances of the case (in paras 10 and 11), it was held that the maintenance of Rs. 40/- p.m and Rs. 10/- p.m on account of separate residence of the plaintiff was reasonable and justified, and the judgment proceeded:)
11. The impugned judgment could not be assailed on any other ground.
12. The decision of the court below is confirmed in toto. There is, therefore, no merit in this appeal, and it is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances both the parties will bear their own costs of this Court.
13. Appeal dismissed.
Alert