This article is written by Pujari Dharani. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, Pinninti Venkataramana & Ors. v. State (1976), especially the High Court’s observations and analysis of provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and why the view taken in Panchireddi Appala Saramma v. Gadela Ganapatulu (1975) was overturned.

Introduction

We know there is an age limit prescribed for both bride and bridegroom in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter mentioned as “Act”). However, people are still performing marriages in violation of this condition. The major question is the validity of such marriages which are solemnised in contravention of one of the essential conditions of a valid Hindu marriage, i.e., the age limit and whether these marriages are valid or void in the eyes of law. To establish a case under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter mentioned as “IPC”), i.e., the offence of bigamy, two valid marriages must be solemnised. The validity of child marriage for the purpose of convicting the accused for bigamy was the major question addressed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Pinninti Venkataramana & Ors. v. State (1976). This is a landmark case where the relevant provisions regarding child marriage and previous precedents on the same issue were clearly elucidated by the High Court with proper reasoning.

Let us read this article and know the facts of the case, the intricacies involved in it, and various legal provisions and see how the High Court gave its reasoning.

Details of the case

1. Name of the case – Pinninti Venkataramana & Ors. v. State (1976)
2. Date of the judgment – August 9th, 1976
3. Parties of the case –
   1. Petitioner: Pinninti Venkataramana & Ors.
   2. Respondent: State
4. Parties represented by –
   1. Petitioner: Advocates, namely A. Surya Rao and A. Lakshminarayana
   2. Respondent: Advocates, namely Y. Bhaskara Rao and G. Venugopal Rao
5. Citation – AIR 1977 AP 43
6. Type of the case – Criminal Revision Petition
7. Court – the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh
8. Provisions and Statutes involved – Sections 4, 5, 11, 12, 13(2), 16, 17 and 18 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Sections 109 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; and Section 18(2) of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976.
9. Bench – the then Chief Justice of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Justice B.J. Divan, Justice Alladi Kuppuswami, and Justice K.A. Muktadar.

Facts of Pinninti Venkataramana & Ors. vs. State (1976)

This case consisted of two criminal revision petitions and one criminal miscellaneous petition. Though the facts of each case are different, the main issue to be addressed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is the same. Hence, all three cases were placed together before the Full Bench of the High Court to decide upon the matter. 

With regard to the criminal revision petitions, the facts of the case are that all petitioners were convicted for the offence of bigamy. One under Section 494 (bigamy) of the IPC by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajam and the other one under Section 494 read with Section 109 (abetment) of the IPC. Both approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court against their respective conviction orders by the Trial Courts and the High Court, in their appeals, upheld their convictions but modified the punishment and imposed a penalty of Rs. 200; on non-payment, such petitioner must be sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The petitioner once again went against their conviction by filing the revision petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Coming to the criminal miscellaneous petition, a woman, the respondent in the present case, lodged a criminal complaint against her husband and ten other persons in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Siddipet, Medak District, alleging that the husband committed the offence of bigamy and others abetted such commission.

These cases were referred to a larger Bench, i.e., the Full Bench of the High Court, consisting of three justices, as the main issue in this matter had already been dealt with and decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Panchireddi Appala Saramma v. Gadela Ganapatulu (1975).

Provisions involved in Pinninti Venkataramana & Ors. vs. State (1976)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

The preamble of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 states that the statute was made to amend and codify the laws, including the customary laws, that are related to the institution of Hindu marriage.

Section 4

Section 4 of the Act is a saving provision, and it provides that the following will be in force.

1. Any Hindu law text,
2. Any rule or interpretation of Hindu law,
3. Any custom or usage which forms part of Hindu law and
4. Any other statutory laws in force.

Provided those must be in force just before the enforcement of the Hindu Marriage Act and must not be contrary to the provisions of this Act.

Section 5

Section 5 of the Act talks about the necessary requirements or essential conditions that have to be satisfied in order to consider a marriage as a valid Hindu marriage in the eyes of the law. As per the legal language, a marriage that fulfils certain conditions is termed to be a marriage solemnised between the parties and, hence, is a valid Hindu marriage. The following are the essential conditions for a valid Hindu marriage as they existed at the time of the year 1976, which eventually underwent amendments.

1. Clause (i): Both parties to the marriage, bride and bridegroom, should not have a spouse living at the time of the marriage. However, if one’s first spouse died and he married again with another woman after the death of the first spouse, his act does not amount to the offence of bigamy because the first marriage is not in continuance.  Here, it is said that the party did not violate this condition because he married for the second time only after the death of the first spouse.
2. Clause (ii): Neither party to the marriage must be an idiot or lunatic at the time of the marriage. If a party develops a mental illness like lunacy later than after the marriage has taken place, then such a marriage cannot be declared void on the grounds of a violation of this condition. This condition is laid down because the law requires a person to be of sound mind and without any mental illness during the time of marriage so as to be capable of consenting to the marriage they are performing.
3. Clause (iii): At the date of the marriage, the bridegroom must have completed 18 years of age, while the bride must have attained 15 years of age. 
4. Clause (iv): The relationship between the bride and groom before the marriage must not fall under any of the prohibited degrees of marriage. The Act provided an exception to this condition. The exception is, when a custom or usage governing the parties allows such a marriage, though it may fall under a prohibited degree of relationship, such marriage is not void and is saved by this condition.
5. Clause (v): There should not be any sapinda relationship between the parties to the marriage. The exception to this condition is that the custom or usage of a caste or community to which the parties belong permits such marriage.
6. Clause (vi): The law mandates that the guardian in marriage of the bride must consent to such marriage, in case she is under the age of 18 years.

Section 11

Section 11 of the Act tells us when a marriage is termed as void marriage as per the law. As per this Section, the following essentials must be satisfied to declare a marriage as void and either party to the marriage, who is seeking a decree for the nullity of marriage by way of initiation of a petition in a competent court, can obtain the same by such court.

1. A marriage between two Hindus must have been solemnized;
2. Such solemnisation must take place after the enforcement of the Hindu Marriage Act; and
3. Such marriage must have violated Clause (i), (iv) or (v) of Section 5 of the Act.

By the wording of this Section, the intention of the legislature is that the violation of only three clauses, namely Clauses (i), (iv) and (v), has a legal consequence of a decree of nullity of the marriage, not with regard to the other clauses.

Section 12

Section 12 of the Act tells us what marriage constitutes a voidable marriage, which is a marriage that may be declared void at the option of one spouse who is entitled to do so. Any person may, by petition, obtain a decree of the nullity of his/her marriage, provided any one of the following grounds must be satisfied.

1. Either of the parties is impotent and, for this reason, the marriage is not consummated.
2. The condition regarding not being idiotic or lunatic, as specified in clause (ii) of Section 5, was violated by either party to the marriage.
3. Consent of the petitioner or, in the case of the guardian in marriage being consenting, the consent of the guardian as to the performance of marriage, was obtained either by force or by fraud. In cases of fraudulent representation due to which consent was obtained, such representation in question must pertain to the following aspects.
   1. Nature of any of the ceremonies performed during such marriage.
   2. Any material or significant fact or circumstance concerning the other party to the marriage, who will be a respondent in the petition.

Section 16

Section 16 of the Act provides rules as to the legitimacy of children in cases of void and voidable marriages. The rule is that the children born out of a void marriage will always be considered legitimate children, provided such children are begotten before the decree of nullity is granted by the court under Section 12 and should not be illegitimate in case the marriage in dispute is valid.

Section 17

Section 17 of the Act prescribes punishment to be imposed on the party to the marriage who violates clause (i) of Section 5, i.e., the monogamy rule. This provision does not specifically prescribe the imprisonment period or the penalty to be imposed; rather, it just says that such marriage, which is solemnised in violation of the rule laid down in clause (i), is void and the party, whether bride or groom, commits the offence of bigamy. The penal provisions, namely, Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, will come into play to make such a person liable for committing the offence of bigamy.

The difference between Section 12 and 17 as to specifying the legal consequence of the commission of bigamy is that the former just tells the validity of such marriage stating it to be void, whereas the latter, besides declaring such marriage to be void, prescribes punishment for the same.

Section 18

Section 18 of the Act prescribes punishment, whether imprisonment or penalty or both, on a party to the marriage who violates certain clauses of Section 5 of the Act, namely, clauses (iii), (iv), (v), and (vi). The punishment, at the time of 1976, for violation of each clause provided in the section is given below.

Violation of a clause in Section 5	Punishment provided in Section 18
Violation of clause (iii), i.e., the prescribed age limit for both bride and bridegroom	Simple imprisonment for a maximum of fifteen days, or with a penalty up to Rs. 1000, or both imprisonment and penalty
Violation of clause (iv) or (v), i.e., a condition that both parties should not be of prohibited or sapinda relationship, respectively	Simple imprisonment, maximum of one month, or with a penalty of up to Rs. 1000, or both imprisonment and penalty
Violation of clause (vi), i.e., the condition of consent of the guardian for marriage where the bride is a minor	Penalty up to Rs. 1000

Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

This provision defines and punishes the offence of bigamy. There are a few essentials to be established beyond all reasonable doubt by the prosecution to convict the accused under Section 494 of the IPC. The essentials are-

1. The accused must have performed two valid marriages. Proving the validity of both marriages is crucial.
2. The first marriage must be in subsistence. If the first marriage is voidable and it is not repudiated at the instance of a spouse entitled to do so, then such marriage is considered valid and is in subsistence.

This provision is now replaced with Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.

To learn more about Section 494, click here.

Issues raised in Pinninti Venkataramana & Ors. vs. State (1976)

The issue raised before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is whether a Hindu marriage, which is governed by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is void ab initio if the parties to the marriage or either of them are below their respective ages as prescribed in Clause (iii) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 

Arguments advanced

On behalf of the petitioners

In the criminal miscellaneous petition, the respondent-complainant, who alleged the offence of bigamy was committed by her husband, is 9 years of age and the husband’s age was 13 years at the time of their marriage, i.e., in 1959. The husband, the petitioner in the present case, relied on the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court in the case of Panchireddi Appala Saramma v. Gadela Ganapatulu (1975), where the Court held that a Hindu marriage, where parties to such marriage are of below prescribed age, was no marriage in the eyes of law and will be declared to be a void ab initio. By referring to this precedent, the respondent argued that his first marriage with the complaint would be considered a void marriage and, therefore, his second marriage does not amount to a case of bigamy and, subsequently, prayed to quash the criminal complaint.

Judgment in Pinninti Venkataramana & Ors. vs. State (1976)

The Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the marriage solemnised in contravention of clause (iii) of Section 5 (the bride and bridegroom are not of the prescribed age limit) are neither void nor voidable and at the instance of the bride, if all essentials are proved by her. Such marriage can be repudiated by obtaining a decree of dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (Divorce) and the wrongdoer will be punished as per Section 18.

The High Court further directed the criminal revision petitions to the single-judge bench of the High Court, and the criminal miscellaneous petition was dismissed.

Court’s observations in Pinninti Venkataramana & Ors. vs. State (1976)

Violation of clauses of Section 5 and its legal consequences

The Court distinguished Sections 11 and 12 of the Act for better clarity on the said provisions. The said differentiation was given in a tabular form for a better understanding.

Basis of  difference	Section 11 of the Act	Section 12 of the Act
Deals with	Void marriage	Voidable marriage
Application	The rule under Section 11 applies only to the marriages that are solemnised before the enforcement of the Act.	The rule under Section 12 applies to all marriages, irrespective of whether they are solemnised before or after the enforcement of the Act.
Grounds	When clauses (i), (iv) or (v) of Section 5 are violated	When any clause provided in Section 5 is violated, it becomes voidable at the instance of one party, who is entitled to do so, and, if either of the grounds mentioned in Section 12 is satisfied, such marriage will be declared as no marriage by the competent court.

From the above differentiation, the High Court found that the violation of clause (ii) of Section 5 will make such marriage voidable at the option of one party to the marriage and, until such spouse entitled to do so has not approached the competent court for obtaining the decree of nullity of marriage, the marriage in question is valid.

The Court, then, examined the principles and law laid down in the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act relevant to the case, namely, Sections 4, 5, 11 and 12, and concluded that there is no mention in any of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act regarding the consequence of the violation of clause (ii) of Section i.e., the age limit prescribed by law.

However, on careful perusal of Sections 5, 11, 12, 17 and 18 of the Act, the High Court made the following findings regarding the legal consequences of a violation of the clauses mentioned in Section 5.

1. Only the violation of clauses (i), (iv) or (v) will make the marriage null and void, and any party to the marriage can obtain a decree of nullity on petition from a competent court of law, as provided in Section 11. Thus, violation of other clauses, namely, clauses (ii), (iii) and (vi), will not render a marriage void.
2. The violation of clause (ii), i.e., the age limit condition, will make the marriage just voidable, not void, as per Section 12 and, subsequently, liable to be annulled at the option of the party concerned.
3. In cases where the bride is under 18 years of age if consent by the guardian in marriage is obtained by way of force or fraud, then it renders such marriage voidable. The Court also found that a violation of clause (vi) or absence of a guardian’s consent does not make a marriage void.
4. The legislature imposed punishment or penalty on the party who violates any of the rules provided in all clauses of Section 5 except clause (ii).

From the above findings, it is evident that the legal consequences of the contravention of each clause of Section 5 are different from one another.

Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929

The Court took note of a statute, i.e., the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, which was enforced before the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act. The said statute, though it prohibits child marriages and punishes the parties, the bride or groom, if they infringe on the legal provisions of this Act, never declares a marriage void. This legal position was reiterated by Justice Jagadisan in the case of B. Sivanandy v. Bhagavathyamma (1962), saying that the Child Marriage Restraint Act does not invalidate any marriage on the ground of a violation of its legal provisions, as the validity of the marriage is a matter that is not within the ambit of the Act. In the Sivanandy case, the Madras High Court held the following.

1. A marriage by a minor boy is considered to be valid, though a minor is not competent to enter into contracts, because a marriage, under Hindu law, is a sacrament, not a contract.
2. A minor may be prohibited from being burdened with contractual obligations, not from performing samskaras (ceremonies in Hinduism).
3. Even if such child marriage is solemnised without the guardian’s consent, its validity will not be affected and does not become void by virtue of the doctrine of factum valet.

In this regard, Justice Jagadisan relied on Venkatacharyulu v. Rangacharyulu & Anr. (1991), where the Madras High Court held that the marriage was solemnised by performing all essential religious rites, including the ceremony of saptapadi. It is said that a religious tie is knotted for life and will not be broken merely on the ground that the father of the bride, a Vaishnava Brahmin girl, did not consent to such a marriage. The court held that the said marriage is a valid marriage and the father cannot repudiate the same, thus emphasising that the marriage, under Hindu law, is a sacrament and not a mere contract. This position of law, which was prevailing before the commencement of the Hindu Marriage Act, was given due respect by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the present case.

The doctrine of Factum Valet

The doctrine of factum valet means an act is treated to be valid and lawful, even if it is not as per the law when such an act is performed completely. This doctrine is based on a maxim, factum valet quod fieri dabuit, which means “what ought not to be done becomes valid when done”. For more information on this doctrine, click here.

The High Court further observed that the doctrine of factum valet is applied in cases where a marriage was performed without the consent of the guardian of the minor party to the marriage. The framers and writers of Hindu law were aware of this doctrine. There is a Sanskrit text in Hindu law that conveys that “a fact cannot be altered by a hundred texts.” Based on the doctrine of factum valet, child marriage cannot be undone, though there are many legal provisions prohibiting the same. In this context, the High Court also noted the rule in Section 4 of the Act that, unless there is an express provision in the Act prohibiting the practice of any custom or usage, such practices will not be stopped from being applied to the relevant and appropriate cases.

Overturning the judgment of Pinninti Venkataramana & Ors. vs. State (1976)

The Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, consisting of Chief Justice Obul Reddi and Justice Madhusudan Rao, in the case of Panchireddi Appala Saramma v. Gadela Ganapatulu (1975), held that child marriage in contravention of clause (iii) of Section 5, which is a condition precedent to any Hindu marriage, is no marriage, i.e., void ab initio in the eyes of law and it is not necessary for either party to the marriage to approach the competent court in order to obtain the decree of nullity on the ground of non-satisfaction of the age limit criteria.

The Full Bench of the High Court, in the present case, highlighted that the legislature did not specify any legal consequences if a marriage violated the age limit condition in any of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, including Sections 11 or 12. The High Court further disagreed with the view that the conditions mentioned in Section 5 of the Act are conditions precedent to any Hindu marriage to be solemnised as agreeing with such a view will have serious consequences in society.

The High Court emphasised the well-settled principle that the law and courts should always try to confer legitimacy to the innocent children procreated out of any marriage. This principle was recognised in Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which confers legitimacy on children conceived out of the marriage declared to be either void under Section 11 or voidable under Section 12. However, the Court found that this provision will not apply to cases where the marriage is solemnised in violation of clause (iii) of Section 5 because the consequence of contravention of clause (iii) is provided neither in Section 11 nor in Section 12. Thus, the Court noted that such children out of child marriage, unfortunately, would be considered illegitimate children if the legal position taken in the P.A. Saramma case were followed.

The High Court, furthermore, stated that even the legislature did not intend to provide the conditions in Section 5 as condition precedents because, if that is the case, the separate provisions for specifying the consequence of violation of each clause in Section 5 would not be drafted and violation of any clause would make such marriage void. Thus, the decision in the P.A. Saramma case is contrary to the legislature’s intention, and this is another reason for the Full Bench of the High Court to respectfully disagree with the view taken in the said precedent that clauses in Section 5 are condition precedents.

Additionally, the High Court cited a few cases of various High Courts and other courts where it was held that child marriages solemnised in contravention of clauses (iii) and (vi) of Section 5 will not constitute the marriage void or voidable and such marriages are valid in the eyes of law and enforceable by law. This was held by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mohinder Kaur v. Major Singh (1972), Judicial Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh in Mt. Kalawati v. Devi Ram (1961), Mst. Premi v. Daya Ram (1965) and Smt. Naumi v. Narotam (1963), Allahabad High Court in Mst. Mahari v. Director of Consolidation (1969), Orissa High Court in Budhi Sahu v. Lohurani Sahuni ILR (1970) CAL 1215 and Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gindan v. Barelal (1976). In the end, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed that the decision taken in the afore-cited cases is correct in its view.

The High Court further observed that the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, made various amendments to the Hindu Marriage Act, especially one more ground for divorce, which was added in Section 13, stating that if the wife got married below fifteen years of age, then she could file a petition for a decree for dissolution of the marriage and obtain a divorce decree when she was fifteen years of age and until she turned eighteen years old. From this, it can be understood that the legislature did not provide the validity of child marriage and if the legislature intends to make child marriage void ab initio or no marriage, then there would not be any requirement for divorce and this amendment would not be necessary to be included.

For the above-mentioned reasoning given by the Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court, the decision taken in Panchireddi Appala Saramma v. Gadela Ganapatulu (1975) was held to be incorrect and overturned.

Conclusion

The Full Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh rightly overturned the decision of Panchireddi Appala Saramma v. Gadela Ganapatulu (1975) and removed the judicial error. Otherwise, many accused people charged with Section 494 of the IPC whose first marriage was solemnised when they were children would take the plea that their first marriage is void as it was violating clause (iii) of Section 5 and escape from their criminal liability. This would be a gross injustice to the women who are victims of the bigamy committed by their respective husbands. Conscious of these consequences, the High Court took the right decision and held that child marriage is neither void nor voidable in the eyes of law by properly analysing the relevant provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and Hindu law concepts.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What are the conditions of a Hindu marriage?

The conditions for a Hindu marriage were specified under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The conditions are that the parties to the marriage, i.e., the bride and bridegroom, should not have been in a marriage that is in subsistence, should not be incapable of giving consent, should be of sound mind, should conform to the prescribed age limit and their relationship should not be prohibited and be sapindas to each other.

Is it mandatory to fulfil all the conditions specified in Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

As per the decision given in the case of Pinninti Venkataramana v. State (1976), the conditions specified in Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, are not conditions precedents and the law did not impose on the parties to mandatorily fulfil them. However, because this decision is delivered by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, this case is binding only on the courts subordinate to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh but not on the courts throughout the country. Although it is not a binding authority, it still has persuasive value and can serve as a reference.

Are there any legal consequences for violation of the conditions of a valid marriage?

The provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provide legal consequences for violations of each clause of Section 5. Violation of a few clauses will amount to criminal liability, while violation of other clauses amounts to just making the marriage void. Thus, though the conditions specified in Section 5 are not condition precedents, any violation of the same has its own legal consequences, which one can find in Sections 11, 12, 17 and 18 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Is child marriage a valid marriage in the eyes of the law as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

Clause (iii) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 specifies a condition for a Hindu marriage regarding the minimum age limit for both bride and bridegroom. It states that the bride shall be eighteen years old and the bridegroom twenty-one years old. 

Coming to the legal consequence of child marriage, Section 13 provides an option for the woman to repudiate her marriage if she got married when she was below fifteen years old. Besides this, Section 17 clearly states that the persons concerned in performing a child marriage will be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a period of up to two years or a penalty of up to one lakh rupees. The Court, at its discretion, can also impose both an imprisonment sentence and a penalty on the guilty persons.

Besides this, the validity of child marriage is not explicitly addressed in the Hindu Marriage Act because it was neither mentioned in Section 11, which talks about void marriages, nor in Section 12, which deals with voidable marriages.

Whether a child marriage is considered a valid marriage for the purpose of dealing with a Section 494 case?

In a criminal proceeding against an accused person who is charged with Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, child marriage may be considered a valid marriage, provided it is not repudiated and other essentials of a valid marriage are proved by the prosecution. For instance, in the case of Pinninti Venkataramana v. State (1976), the accused performed a child marriage and married again. He argued that child marriage is no marriage in the eyes of the law as one of the conditions of valid marriage, i.e., confirming the minimum age limit as specified in Clause (iii) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh denied this argument and convicted him of bigamy by considering both marriages, including his first child marriage, as valid marriages.

References

• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/131121/
• “Modern Hindu Law” authored by Dr. Paras Diwan.
• “The Indian Penal Code” authored by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal.