Introduction:

In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of void and voidable marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Allahabad High Court has held that a Hindu marriage cannot be declared void at the behest of in-laws at a belated stage on the ground that the wife was underage at the time of solemnization. The Court underscored that the statute consciously limits who can challenge a marriage and on what grounds, and courts cannot expand those grounds by judicial interpretation, especially when the challenge is raised by third parties with vested interests.

The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh in First Appeal No. 493 of 2025, titled Rajdhari and Another v. Sadhna Devi. The case arose from a prolonged legal dispute between a war widow and her in-laws concerning entitlement to service and pensionary benefits of a deceased Army officer. Central to the dispute was the legitimacy of the marriage between the deceased officer and the respondent-wife.

The respondent-wife approached the Family Court seeking a declaration of her marriage with the deceased. The Family Court granted the declaration. Aggrieved, the parents of the deceased husband challenged the decision before the High Court, contending that the marriage was void since the wife was allegedly a minor—short by two months of attaining 18 years—at the time of marriage. The High Court was therefore required to examine whether contravention of the age condition under Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act could render a marriage void under Section 11 at the instance of third parties, particularly when the issue was raised belatedly and never earlier pleaded.

Arguments of the Appellants (In-Laws):

The appellants, who were the parents of the deceased husband, contended that the marriage between their son and the respondent was void ab initio as it violated Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which prescribes the minimum age of 21 years for the groom and 18 years for the bride at the time of marriage. They relied upon an identity card allegedly showing that the respondent-wife was two months short of 18 years on the date of marriage.

It was argued that compliance with the age requirement is a statutory condition for a valid Hindu marriage, and any marriage solemnized in violation of such condition cannot be recognized in law. According to the appellants, the Family Court erred in granting a declaration of marriage without examining the legality of the marriage in light of the age requirement.

The appellants further submitted that since the issue involved public policy and statutory mandate, the Court was not precluded from examining it merely because it was raised at a later stage. They contended that an underage marriage undermines the legislative intent behind the Act and that courts should not legitimize such marriages indirectly by granting declarations that confer civil benefits.

Additionally, the appellants argued that since the dispute concerned entitlement to benefits accruing from the deceased Army officer’s service, they had sufficient locus standi to challenge the marriage, as recognition of the respondent as a legally wedded wife would directly affect their rights and interests. According to them, the declaration granted by the Family Court was erroneous and liable to be set aside.

Arguments of the Respondent (Wife):

The respondent-wife strongly opposed the appeal, arguing that the challenge itself was legally misconceived and barred by the scheme of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was contended that even assuming, without admitting, that the respondent was marginally underage at the time of marriage, such contravention does not render the marriage void under Section 11 of the Act.

The respondent emphasized that Section 11 expressly limits void marriages to violations of clauses (i), (ii), and (iv) of Section 5, namely bigamy, prohibited degrees of relationship, and sapinda relationship. Clause (iii), which relates to age, has been consciously excluded by the Legislature from Section 11. Therefore, a marriage in breach of age requirement is neither void nor voidable under Sections 11 or 12 of the Act.

It was further argued that only parties to the marriage have the statutory right to seek a decree of nullity or annulment. The appellants, being in-laws and not spouses, had no locus standi to challenge the marriage. The respondent pointed out that the deceased husband himself never questioned the validity of the marriage during his lifetime, nor did the appellants raise the issue before any competent court at an earlier stage.

The respondent also highlighted that the plea of minority was never taken in the written statement before the Family Court, nor was it part of the issues framed. Raising such a plea for the first time in appeal was impermissible, particularly when it involved disputed questions of fact.

It was submitted that the appeal was a collateral attempt to deprive a war widow of her legitimate rights and benefits by raising a hyper-technical plea that the statute itself does not recognize as a ground for nullity. The respondent urged the Court to uphold the Family Court’s declaration and dismiss the appeal.

Court’s Judgment:

After a detailed examination of the statutory framework and the facts of the case, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the declaration granted by the Family Court. The Court’s reasoning was rooted firmly in the legislative scheme of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Court noted that Section 5(iii) prescribes the age conditions for a Hindu marriage, but Section 11, which deals with void marriages, deliberately excludes clause (iii) from its ambit. The Court held that this exclusion is not accidental but a conscious legislative choice, reflecting the intent that underage marriage, though regulated and discouraged, is not void under the Act.

The Bench categorically observed that contravention of the age condition does not render a Hindu marriage void and cannot be a ground for declaring it nullity under Section 11. The Court further noted that Section 12, which deals with voidable marriages, also does not include violation of clause (iii) of Section 5 as a ground for annulment.

A crucial aspect of the judgment was the Court’s finding on locus standi. The Bench held that the cause of action under Sections 11 and 12 is available only to a spouse to the marriage. Third parties, including parents of the husband, have no statutory right to seek a declaration that a marriage is void or voidable. Allowing such challenges would open the floodgates to collateral attacks on marital status, contrary to legislative intent.

The Court also took note of the fact that the plea regarding the respondent being underage was never raised before the Family Court and was sought to be introduced for the first time at the appellate stage. The Court held that such a belated plea, especially one involving factual determination, could not be entertained.

On facts, the Court observed that the identity card relied upon by the appellants merely suggested that the respondent was two months short of attaining 18 years, which, even if accepted, did not provide a legal basis to declare the marriage void. The Court emphasized that the marriage had already been recognized, and the challenge was motivated by a dispute over benefits rather than any genuine concern about legality.

The Bench concluded that the appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed it, thereby affirming the respondent’s status as the legally wedded wife of the deceased. The ruling reinforces that courts must respect legislative boundaries and cannot invalidate marriages on grounds not recognized by statute, particularly at the instance of third parties and at a belated stage.