BHAGWATI @ REENA versus ANIL CHOUBEY

Citation: [2017] 4 S.C.R. 421 · Decided: 01-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA, PRAFULLA C. PANT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[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. 
421 
H 
422 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.05.2015 of the High Court 
B 
c 
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 
Singh, Advs. for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
ORDER 
I. Leave granted. 
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-
h

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.