through the record, we find that the lust for sex and subsequently, the greed for
dowry, has given rise to this case. However, the fact remains that the case filed
by the appellant was not maintainable in the eyes of law, for the reasons
discussed hereinafter.
10. Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act reads as follows:-
"11. Void marriages.- Any marriage solemnized after the
commencement of this Act shall be null and void and may, on a
petition presented by either party thereto, against the other party,
be so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes any one of
the conditions specified in clauses (i),(iv) and (v) of section 5.” -3-
Section 5 (i), (iv) and (v) of the Hindu Marriage Act reads as
follows:-
"5. Conditions for a Hindu marriage.- A marriage may be
solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions
are fulfilled, namely:-
(i) neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage;
(ii) ------------
(iii) ------------
(iv) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited
relationship, unless the custom or usage governing each of them
permits of a marriage between the two;
(v) the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom
or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between
the two;"
11. Thus from a bare reading of these provisions it apparent that
the marriage between the parties could have been declared void by a decree of
nullity of marriage, only in case, the case of the petitioner had fallen within
Clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, i.e., neither of
the party had a spouse living at the time of the marriage, or that the parties were
within the degrees of prohibited relationship, or that the parties were sapindas of
each other.
12. In view of the fact that the case of the appellant did not fall in
either of the above three categories, the marriage between the parties could not
have been declared void by the Court below and the case filed by the appellant
was not at all maintainable. As such, the case has rightly been dismissed by the
Court below.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A.No. 72 of 2008
Manbodh Kr. Pradhan. V Kalpana Pradhan
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. S.N. PATHAK
Citation: AIR 2017 Jharkhand 40
