1978 (5) TMI 121 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a marriage contracted in contravention of the proviso to Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is void or merely invalid.
2. The impact of the proviso to Section 15 on the legitimacy of children born out of such a marriage.
3. The interpretation and application of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act in comparison with similar provisions in other marriage laws.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Marriage Contravening Proviso to Section 15:

The primary issue is whether a marriage contracted in violation of the proviso to Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is void or merely invalid. The Court observed that the Act prescribes conditions for a valid Hindu marriage under Section 5 and specifies which contraventions render a marriage void under Section 11. It was noted that while some conditions, if violated, render a marriage void, others do not. The proviso to Section 15 prohibits remarriage within one year of a divorce decree but does not explicitly state that such a marriage is void. The Court concluded that the absence of an explicit declaration of voidness and the lack of penal consequences for violating the proviso suggest that such a marriage is not void. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent was not to treat every contravention of the conditions for a valid marriage as rendering the marriage void unless expressly stated.

2. Legitimacy of Children Born from Such a Marriage:

The Court considered the impact of the proviso to Section 15 on the legitimacy of children born from a marriage contracted in contravention of it. Section 16 of the Act legitimizes children born from marriages that are annulled by a decree of nullity. However, since a marriage in violation of the proviso to Section 15 is not explicitly declared void, Section 16 does not apply. The Court noted that treating such marriages as void would result in discriminatory treatment of children born from such marriages, as they would be illegitimate without any provision in the Act conferring legitimacy. This further supports the conclusion that the legislature did not intend to treat such marriages as void.

3. Interpretation and Application of Section 15:

The Court examined the interpretation of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act in light of similar provisions in other marriage laws, such as the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The Court noted that while the Indian Divorce Act contains provisions that explicitly render certain marriages void, the Hindu Marriage Act does not do so for marriages in contravention of the proviso to Section 15. The Court also considered the legislative history and amendments to the Act, specifically the deletion of the proviso to Section 15 by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, which allows parties to remarry soon after a divorce decree. This deletion reinforces the view that the legislature did not intend to treat such marriages as void.

The Court also referred to the principle in Mohammedan Law, where marriages performed during the period of Iddat are considered irregular but not void, drawing a parallel to the situation under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Separate Judgment Analysis:

Pathak, J.:

Pathak, J. agreed with the conclusion that the appeals should be allowed but provided additional reasoning. He emphasized that the object behind the proviso to Section 15 was to prevent hasty remarriages and avoid confusion in parentage. However, he noted that the temporary nature of the prohibition and its deletion by Parliament indicate that the proviso was not intended to render marriages void. Pathak, J. also referred to judicial interpretations of similar provisions in other laws, such as the Indian Divorce Act, which have consistently treated marriages in violation of such provisions as void. However, he distinguished these cases based on the specific language and context of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He concluded that the marriage in question was not void, and the appellant was entitled to be considered the wife of Rajendra Kumar.

Conclusion:

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments of the Division Bench and the learned single Judge of the High Court, and dismissed the writ petitions. The Court held that a marriage contracted in contravention of the proviso to Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is not void, and the appellant was entitled to be recognized as the wife and widow of Rajendra Kumar.