Breach of Age Requirements Under Hindu Marriage Act Does Not Render Marriage Void or Invalid

The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit seeking a declaration that she was the legally married wife of the late Shibram Lohar and claimed consequential retiral benefits

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the marriage between Shibram and Defendant No. 1 (Respondent) was invalid because the respondent was only 10 years old at the time of marriage, violating the age requirements under Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929

The First Appellate Court reversed this finding, accepting oral evidence from independent witnesses—including details of the barber, priest, and the performance of Saptapadi—which proved the marriage between Shibram and Defendant No. 1 occurred on July 3, 1970

The plaintiff appealed this reversal to the High Court

1. Whether an under-age marriage (violating Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act) is rendered void or invalid under the Hindu Marriage Act or the Child Marriage Restraint Act

2. Whether a subsequent marriage registration certificate overrides a prior, subsisting Hindu marriage proven by ceremonies and rituals

3. Whether the High Court in a Second Appeal should reassess the factual appreciation of evidence conducted by the First Appellate Court

Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which stipulates the age of consent for marriage (21 for grooms, 18 for brides), but clarified that a violation of this provision does not render a marriage void or voidable under the Act

The Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, provides for penalties but has no bearing on the validity of a Hindu marriage

Under Hindu Law, the performance of Saptapadi and essential rites—not a registration certificate—conclusively establishes a marriage; while a certificate creates a presumption, it is rebuttable

Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the dismissal of appeals lacking substantial questions of law

The court reasoned that the Trial Judge committed a patent legal error by assuming that a child marriage is void; settled law establishes that an under-age marriage is neither void nor voidable under the Hindu Marriage Act

The First Appellate Court correctly shifted the focus from the age of the parties to the performance of Vedic rites. The High Court observed that the marriage of Defendant No. 1 was conclusively proven through oral testimony regarding the presence of a priest and barber and the performance of Saptapadi

Consequently, since a valid marriage between Shibram and Defendant No. 1 already subsisted, any subsequent marriage or registration certificate produced by the plaintiff/appellant "carries no meaning"

The court further noted that the appreciation of evidence is a question of fact, and since the First Appellate Court corrected the legal errors of the Trial Court, no substantial question of law remained for the Second Appellate Court to adjudicate

The Second Appeal (SA 41 of 2025) and the connected application (CAN 1 of 2022) were dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the CPC as they involved no substantial question of law

No order as to costs was made