LexGULLIPILLI SOWRIA RAJ versus BANDARU PAVANI @ GULLIPILI PAVANI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 35
GULLIPILLI SOWRIA RAJ
II.
BANDARU PAVANI @ GULLIPILI PAVANI
(Civil Appeal No. 2446 of 2005)
DECEMBER 04, 2008
[AL TAMAS KABIR AND AFT AB ALAM, JJ.]
~-
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Preamble, ss.2, 5, 7, Band
12(1)(c)- Marriage between a Hindu and a Christian- Validity
A
B
of -
Held: A marriage between a Hindu and Christian C
solemnized according to Hindu customs is a nullity -
Registration of such marriage uls 8 does not validate the
same.
Appellant, who is a Christian married the respondent, 0
who is a Hindu,· in a temple. Marriage was registered u/s
8 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Respondent-wife filed a
petition u/s 12{1)(c) of the Act, seeking decree of nullity
of marriage on the ground that there was
misrepresentation by the appellant regarding his social E
status that he was a Hindu. Appellant-husband admitted
that he was a Christian. Family Court allowed the appeal
thereagainst.
In appe~I to this Court, the 'question for consideration
was whether a marriage entered into by a Hindu with a F
Christian is valid under the provisions of Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. A marriage entered into by a Hindu with G
a Christian is not valid under the provisions of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. The Preamble of the Act, indicates that
it was enacted to codify the law relating to marriage
amongst Hindus. Section 2 of the Act which deals with
35
H
36
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 17 S.C.R.
A application of the Act, reinforces the said proposition.
Section 5 of the Act thereafter also makes it clear that a
marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus if
the conditions contained in the said Section were
fulfilled. The usage of the expression ·may' in the
B opening line of the Section does not make the provision
of Section 5 optional. On the other and, it in positive
terms, indicates that a marria'ge can be solemnized
between two Hindus, if the conditions indicated were
fulfilled. In the event the conditions remain unfulfilled, a
C marriage between two Hindus could not be solemnized.
The expression 'may' used in the opening words of
Sec;tion 5 is not directory, but mandatory and non-
fulfilment thereof would not permit a marriage under the
Act between two Hindus. Section 7 of the 1955 Act is to
0 be. read along with Section 5 in that a Hindu marriage,
as understood under Section 5, could be solemnized
according to the ceremonies indicated therein. [Paras 1,
.20 and. 21] [37-B; 43-B; C-E]
1.2. In view of the facts pleaded by the respondent
-
E in her applic~tion under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act and
~
the admission of the appellant that he and still is a
Christian
belonging to
th'e
Roman
Catholic
denomination, the marriage solemnized in accordance
with Hindu customs was a nullity and its registration
F under Section 8 of the Act could not and/or. did not
validate the same. [Para 22] (43-F-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2446 of 2005.
G
From the final judgment and Order dated 12.9.2002 of the
High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in
C.M.A. No. 2024 of 1998.
y
U.U. Lalit, C. Mukund, Bandana Anand and Bijoy Kumar
,__
H Jain for the Appellant.
GULLIPILLI SOWRIA RAJ v. BANDARU PAVANI@
37
GULLIPILLI PAVANI
Y. Rajagopala Rao, Y. Ramesh, Y. Vismai and B.V.Niren, A
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
AL TAMAS KABIR, J. 1. The only question which falls for B
determination in this Civil Appeal by way of Special Leave is
whether a marriage entered into by a Hindu with a Christi~n is
valid under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
2. The appellant, who is a Roman Catholic Christian
allegedly married the respondent, who is a Hindu, on c
24.10.1996, in a temple only by exchange of 'Thali' and in the
absence of any representative from either side. Subsequently,
the marriage was registered on 2.11.1996~under Section 8 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the
"1955 Ad'.
D
3. Soon thereafter, on 13.3.1997, the respondent-wife filed
"'
a petition before the Family Court at Vishakapatnam, being
O.P. No.84of1997, under Section 12(1)(c) of 1955 Act, for a
decree of nullity of the marriage entered into between the E
parties on 24.10.1996 on the grounds mentioned in the said
petition.
4. The main ground for declaring the marriage to be a
nullity was mainly misrepresentation by the appellant regarding Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.