BHAGWATI @ REENAversusANIL CHOUBEY

                        [2017] 4 S.C.R. 421


                     BHAGWATI @ REENA                                A
                                v.
                        ANIL CHOUBEY
                 (Civil Appeal No. 4890 of 2017)
                        MARCH0!,2017                                 B
       [N. V. RAMANA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]
       Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - s.12(l)(c) - Annulme1;t of
marriage - Sought by husband on the ground that he was forced to
marry appellant under the threat of false complaint and that at the C
time of marriage, appellant was less than 18 years of age - Trial
court held that marriage of respondent with appellant was void ab
initio on account of appellant having not completed 18 years of age
at the time of marriage and also that respondent proved that his
marriage was held by force - High Court afjlrmed the order of trial
court - On appeal, held: s. 12(l)(c) stipulate that only minor spouse D
has a right to seek annulment of marriage - In this case. admi!ledly
it is respondent-husband who sought annulment of marriage and
he was major at the time of marriage - 111 the interest of justice,
matter remanded back to High Court for fresh consideration.
     Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to High        E
Court, the Court
       HELD: The High Court has clearly erred in reaching to
the conclusion that the appellant was a minor at the time of her
marriage, whereas the appellant has categorically stated that she
was above 18 years old on the date of marriage. It is an admitted    F
position of both the parties that the husband was major at the
time of marriage and he only sought annulment of marriage. The
High Court has sidetracked and diluted the main issue involved
in the appeal i.e. annulment of marriage sought by the respondent-
husband on the ground of fraud and coercion and went on giving       G
findings on the aspect of age of the wife. In fact age of the wife
was one of the grounds raised by the husband. [Paras 8, 9 and
10][423-E-F; 424-B-C]
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4890
of2017.
                                                                     H
                                421
422           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2017] 4 S.C.R.


A          From the Judgment and Order dated 06.05.2015 of the High Court
      of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in First Appeal No. 623 of2005.
            Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Nitin Bhardwaj, Abhishek Pandey, Advs. for
      the Appellant.
            V. K. Shukla, Ms. Kamlesh Tamrakar, Vijay Lakshmi, Amit Gaurav
 B    Singh, Advs. for the Respondent.
            The following Order of the Court was delivered:
                                   ORDER
            I. Leave granted.
 c        2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/wife questio11ing the
   order dated 06-05-2015 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
   at Jabalpur in First Appeal No. 623 of 2005 whereby the High Court
   confirmed the order passed by the Family Court dated 17-06-2005 in
   Civil Suit No.24-A/2002 declaring the marriage between the appellant/
 D wife and the respondent/husband as void ab initio on account ofappellant/
   wife having not completed 18 years of age at the time of marriage.
          3. The respondent/husband filed Civil Suit No. 24-A/2002 on the
   file of the Presiding Officer, Family Court seeking declaration of the
   marriage between the parties solemnized on 07-07-1999 as null and void
 E and sought for a decree of annulment.
          4. It is the specific case of the husband that under the threat of
   registering a false complaint he was forced. to marry the appellant-wife.
   Several complaints were given by her and he was put to lot of stress and
   coercion. It is also his specific case that their marriage was not
 F consummated willfully. There was a threat to his life at the hands of his
   wife and her family after the marriage. He has also stated that at the
   time of marriage, his wife was less than 18 years of age and hence
   sought for annulment of marriage.
          5. In response to this, the appellant-wife stated that marriage was
 G not performed by exerting pressure and the same was solemnized with
   the sheer will and consent of the husband. She stated that marriage was
   consummated between the parties and in fact the respondent-husband
   has contracted a second marriage with another girl named Anita and to
   conceal this offence, he has come up with the Suit seeking annulment of
   marriage with the appellant. According to her, she was major at.the time
 H
             BHAGWATI @REENA v. ANIL CHOUBEY                                     423


of her marriage with the respondent-husband.                                     A
       6. The trial Court, after a full fledged trial, formed the opinion that
the appellant-wife was aged less than 18 years at the time of her marriage
which violates the provisions of Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955. The trial Court has also come to the conclusion that the respondent-
husband has proved that his marriage with the appellant-wife was held            B
by force. Accordingly, the trial Court annulled the marriage and decreed
forthe dissolution.
       7. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-wife carried the matter
to the High Court. Before the High Court she filed an application under
Order 41 Rule 27 ofCPC to place birth certificate as additional evidence.        c
Very interestingly, the High Court has delivered the Judgment only harping
on the age of the wife and further refused to receive the document i.e.
Birth Certificate. There was a finding recorded by the High Court with
regard to the age of the wife that she accepted that she was adult on 28-
06-1999 being the date on which her marriage was fixed with the
respondent and she was short of 8-9 days to complete 18 years, but on            D
the date of her marriage i.e. 7.7.1999 she was 18 years old.
       8. We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused
the record as well. In our considered view, the High Court has clearly
erred in reaching to the conclusion that the appellant was a minor at the
time of her marriage, whereas the appellant has categorically stated that E
she was above 18 years old on the date of marriage. It is an admitted
position of both the parties that the husband was major at the time of
marriage and he only sought annulment of marriage. Here it is pertinent
to have a look at Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
which reads thus:                                                         F
       "that the consent of the petitioner, or where the consent of the
       guardian in marriage of the petitioner was required under se-:tion
       5 as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Child
       Marriage Restrain (Amendment) Act, 1978 (2of 1978), the consent
       of such guardian was obtained by force or by fraud as to the G
       nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstance
       concerning the respondent;"
       9. It is no more res integra that child marriages are voidable at
the option of the minor spouse at the time of marriage. Therefore it is
clear from the reading of the said Section that only minor spouse has a H
424              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2017] 4 S.C.R.


A right to seek annulment of marriage. In this case, admittedly it is
  respond~:nt-husband who sought annulment of marriage and he was major
  at the time of marriage.
         I0. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the findings and
  discussion made gy the High Court. The High Court has sidetracked
B and diluted the main issue involved in the appeal i.e. annulment of rnarriage
  sought by the respondent-husband on the ground of fraud and coercion
  and went on giving findings on the aspect of age of the wife. In fact age
  of the wife is one of the grounds raised by the husband. Even before us
  also the thrust of the argument is on that.
 c           11. Hence we feel that in order to meet the ends of justice this
      matter should be remanded back to the High Court for fresh consideration
      in accordance with law.
         12. Accordingly the matter is remanded to the High Court for
  fresh consideration in the proper perception of law uninfluenced by any
D of the observations made by us. As the Suit is of the year 2000, the High
  Court may dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible.
              13. The appeal stands disposed of without any order as to costs.


      Devika Gujrnl                                            Appeal disposed of.