2.1Hindu marriage (HMA 1955)#
In brief
Section 5: conditions for a valid marriage
- Monogamy
- Sound mind
- Age
- Prohibited degrees
- Sapinda
- Section 7: ceremonies
- Section 8: registration
- Section 9–18
Section 5: conditions for a valid marriage
-
Monogamy: neither party has a spouse living at the time (5(i)).
-
Sound mind: at the time of marriage neither party is incapable of giving valid consent through unsoundness of mind, or though capable of consent is suffering from a mental disorder of such kind or extent as to be unfit for marriage and procreation of children, or has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity (5(ii), as amended by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act 1999; earlier ‘idiot or lunatic’).
-
Age: bridegroom 21, bride 18 (5(iii)). Penalty under Section 18 HMA is now dominated by the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 (PCMA).
-
Prohibited degrees: not within degrees of prohibited relationship unless custom permits (5(iv)); defined in Section 3(g).
-
Sapinda: not sapindas of each other unless custom permits (5(v)); sapinda relationship extends up to five degrees in the line of ascent through the father and three through the mother (Section 3(f)).
-
Clause (vi) (guardian’s consent) was omitted in 1978.
Section 7: ceremonies. A Hindu marriage may be solemnised in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party. Where the rites include the saptapadi (seven steps taken jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken. Case law: Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v State of Maharashtra (1965: ‘solemnise’ means to celebrate with proper ceremonies; Hindu marriage needs essential rites); Priya Bala Ghosh v Suresh Chandra Ghosh (1971). In Dolly Rani v Manish Kumar Chanchal (2024) the Supreme Court held that a Hindu marriage without the requisite ceremonies is not valid merely because a certificate was issued, and a registration under Section 8 does not by itself confer validity (it is evidence of marriage).
Section 8: registration. State Governments may make rules for registration of Hindu marriages; failure to register does not invalidate the marriage (8(5)). Seema v Ashwani Kumar (2006) directed compulsory registration of marriages of all persons of all religions in India.
Section 9–18 (remedies, covered in topic 3). Void and voidable marriages:
| Type | Section | Grounds | Who may petition and limits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Void (void ab initio) | 11 | Bigamy (5(i)); within prohibited degrees (5(iv)); sapindas (5(v)) | Either party (even a third party in some cases); no time limit; decree of nullity is declaratory |
| Voidable | 12 | (a) Respondent’s impotence leading to non-consummation; (b) breach of 5(ii) (mental disorder); (c) consent obtained by force or fraud (as to nature of the ceremony or any material fact about the respondent); (d) respondent was pregnant by another person at marriage | Only the aggrieved party. Section 12(2): fraud or force petitions within 1 year of discovery or cessation of force and no cohabitation afterward; pregnancy ground within 1 year of marriage and no marital intercourse since discovery |
Not a ground for nullity: underage marriage (it is not void under HMA; it may be voidable under PCMA at the child’s option).
Section 16: legitimacy of children. Children of void marriages (under Section 11) and of annulled voidable marriages are legitimate. Section 16(3): they have rights only to the property of their parents, not to any other relative’s property. Parayankandiyal Eravath Kanapravan Kalliani Amma v K. Devi (1996) said property rights of such children are confined to the parents’ self-acquired property; Jinia Keotin v Kumar Sitaram Manjhi (2003) similar; Revanasiddappa v Mallikarjun (2023, three-judge bench) held such children are entitled to a share in the parents’ property, self-acquired and ancestral, to the extent of the parents’ share, even in a Hindu joint family.
Bigamy. Section 17 HMA: punishable under IPC 494 and 495, now BNS Section 82. Sarla Mudgal v Union of India (1995) and Lily Thomas v Union of India (2000): conversion to Islam to contract a second marriage does not dissolve the first Hindu marriage; the second marriage is void and an offence. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v Anantrao (1988): a woman in a bigamous (void) marriage cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC; later, Badshah v Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) tempered this where the wife entered marriage in good faith (verify exact holding before using in an examination).