Division Bench in P. A. Saramma v. G. Ganapatulu [AIR 1975 AP 193] held that a marriage, which is in contravention of Clause (iii) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act is void ab initio and is no marriage in the eye of law. the marriage between him and the Ist respondent was void ab initio and no marriage in the eye of law and hence the action of the Ist petitioner in marrying a girl did not amount to an offence punishable under Section 494. This was referred to the Full Bench in the present case. (3 judges).

Observations:

• By virtue of Section 11, any marriage which is solemnized in contravention of any of the conditions specified in clauses (i) (iv) and (v) of Section 5 is null and void and if a Court of competent jurisdiction is called upon to make a pronouncement, the court may, on an application presented by either party to the marriage, declare such a marriage to be null and void.

Thus, out of the six clauses of Section 5, it is only in connection with clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5 that the Legislature has declared that the contravention of any one of the conditions mentioned in those three clauses will render the marriage null and void.

• The three situations are: (1) that neither party to the marriage has a spouse living at the time of the marriage; (2) that the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship, unless, the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two; (3) that the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two.

• It is worth noting that violation of clause (ii) of Section 5 renders the marriage viodable and not null and void.

Held: The decision of the Division Bench of this High Court in P.A. Saramma v. G. Ganapatulu does not lay down the correct law and it must be held that any marriage solemnized in contravention of clause (iii) of Section 5 is neither void nor voidable, the only consequence being that the persons concerned are liable for punishment under Section 18 and further if the requirements of clause (iv) of sub-section (2) of Section13, as inserted by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act 1976 are satisfied, at the instance of the bride, a decree for divorce can be granted. Barring these two consequences, one arising under Section 18 and the other arising under clause (iv) of sub-section (2) of Section 13, after the enactment of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, there is no other consequence whatsoever resulting from the contravention of the provisions of clause (iii) of Section 5.