Void and Voidable s.11-12 Updated
Void and Voidable s.11-12 Updated
Void marriage –
Section 11 of The Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
- Any marriage solemnized after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void and, on
a petition presented by either party, be so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes any
one of the conditions specified in clauses (i), (iv) and (v), Section 5.
Section 5
Condition for a Hindu Marriage.- A marriage may be solemnized between any two
Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:
(i) no spouse living at the time of the marriage with either party.
Here, the expression ‘spouse’ is used meaning a lawfully married husband or wife. –
Parkash Chander v Parmeshwari AIR 1987
(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;
Shakuntala Devi v Amar Nath AIR 1982
(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;
It is observed in the case of Arun Navalkar v Meena Navalkar AIR 2006 that, ‘when
sapindaship is a specific ground for violability of marriage, the absence of a custom
permitting such a marriage will make the marriage void.’
Voidable marriage –
• If one of the parties does not petition for annulment of marriage, the marriage will
remain valid.
• If one of the parties dies before the marriage is annulled, no one can challenge the
marriage. The marriage will remain valid for ever.
• Once a voidable marriage is annulled the decree is given retrospective effect, from
the date of the marriage. The marriage is deemed to have been void and parties are
deemed to have never been husband and wife.
Extra questions -
Q. What will be the status of the children born out of such marriages? Will they be deemed
as illegitimate after annulment of the marriage?
Q. What is the doctrine of Chruch? Has the Indian laws adopted this doctrine?
(b) that the marriage is in contravention of the condition specified in clause (ii) of
Section 5.
(c) that the consent of the petitioner, was required under Section 5, the consent of such
guardian was obtained by force or by fraud or as to any material fact or circumstance
concerning the respondent.
(d) respondent was at the time of the marriage pregnant by some person.
(a) on the ground specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall be entertained if-
(i) the petition is presented more than one year after the force had ceased to operate or,
the fraud had been discovered.
(ii) the petitioner has, with his or her full consent, lived with the other party to the
marriage as husband or wife after the fraud had been discovered;
(b) on the ground specified in clause (d) of sub-section (1) shall be entertained unless
the court is satisfied-
(i) that the petitioner was at the time of the marriage ignorant of the facts alleged.
(ii) that proceedings have been instituted in the case of a marriage solemnized before
the commencement of this Act within one year of such commencement and in the case
of marriages solemnized after such commencement within one year from the date of the
marriage.
(iii) that marital intercourse with the consent of the petitioner has not taken place since
the discovery by the petitioner of the existence of the said ground.
Summary of grounds:
• Impotency
• Insanity
• Force & Fraud
• Pregnancy at the time of marriage
Impotency –
• At the time of consummation of marriage.
• Should not be occasional impotency
• If curable then it does not amount to impotency unless husband says no for getting it
cured
• Mere bareness or sterility will not amount to impotency-if wife is capable of having
intercourse
• Bop (burden of proof) solely lies on petitioner
• Evidence of doctor assumes great significance
• Provision for maintenance of wife in such cases is available under crpc.
• Where the fact of impotency was suppressed- other can also claim damage for
mental agony and cheating.
• The marriage has not been consummated owing to the wilful refusal of the
respondent to consummate the marriage; or
• The respondent was at the time of the marriage pregnant by some person other
than the petitioner; or
• the consent of either party to the marriage was obtained by coercion or fraud, as
defined, in the Indian contract Act 1872 provided that, in the case specified in clause
(ii) the court shall not grant a decree unless it is satisfied-
(a) that the petitioner was at the time of the marriage ignorant of the facts alleged.
(b) that proceeding were instituted within a year from the date of the marriage.
(c) that marital intercourse with the consent of the petitioner has not taken place since the
discovery by the petitioner of the existence of the grounds for a decree.
• Provided further that in the case specified in clause (iii), the court shall not grant a
decree if-
(a) proceedings have not been instituted within one year after the coercion had ceased or,
the fraud had been discovered.
(b) the petitioner has with his or her free consent lived with the other party to the marriage
as husband and wife after the coercion had ceased or the fraud had been discovered.