Marriage — Marriage between Christian and Hindu according to Hindu rituals — Void and Null — Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, section 5, section 7 and section 11.

The appellant, a Christian,
had married the respondent, a Hindu. The marriage was solemnised according to
the Hindu rituals. The marriage was registered under the Hindu Marriage Act. A
baby girl was born to the appellant and the respondent. The respondent deserted
the appellant. The appellant filed a family suit u/s.11 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 for a declaration that the marriage between the appellant and the
respondent was void. It was alleged that at the time of her marriage to the
appellant, the respondent was already married and the first
marriage was subsisting.

The Trial Court refused to
declare the marriage void as prayed for. However the Court held that the
marriage between the appellant and the respondent was not valid and was not in
consonance with section 5 read with section 7 and section 11 of the Act of 1955.
The suit for declaration under the Act of 1955 was, therefore, not maintainable.

On appeal the Court observed
that the appellant, a Christian, had married the respondent, a Hindu lady.
According to the Hindu rituals, therefore, such marriage is a void marriage
u/s.5 read with section 7 and section 11 of the Act of 1955.

The Act was enacted to
codify the law relating to marriage amongst Hindus. section 5 of the Act makes
it clear that a marriage may be solemnised between any two Hindus if the
conditions contained in the said Section were fulfilled. The usage of the
expression ‘may’ in the opening line of the Section, does not make the provision
of section 5 optional. On the other hand, it in positive terms, indicates that a
marriage can be solemnised between two Hindus if the conditions indicated were
fulfilled. In other words, in the event the conditions remain unfulfilled, a
marriage between two Hindus could not be solemnised.

The Court therefore held
that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was a nullity. The
said marriage was void ab-initio. The marriage between the appellant and the
respondent was not a legal and valid marriage, therefore, the appeal was
allowed.