Is a child marriage under Section 5(iii) HMA void?

No. The Court held that a marriage in breach of age condition is neither void nor voidable under HMA. It remains a marriage in law.

What is the consequence of breaching Section 5(iii)?

Punishment under Section 18 HMA may apply to those responsible—simple imprisonment up to 15 days or fine up to ₹1000, or both (as per the then law).

Does such a marriage affect a bigamy charge under IPC 494?

Since the first marriage is not void, a second marriage can attract IPC 494. The bigamy case does not fail on the ground of void first marriage.

Was the older Division Bench view in P.A. Saramma followed?

No. The Court said P.A. Saramma did not state the correct law and declined to follow it.

What relief did the petitioners get?

None. The prayer to quash the prosecution was rejected; the Court refused to grant relief.

Law Easy

31 October, 2025

201

P. Venkataramana v. State (1977) — Child Marriage under HMA & Bigamy (IPC 494) | The Law Easy

P. Venkataramana v. State (1977)

High Court of Andhra Pradesh 1977 AIR 1977 AP 43 Hindu Marriage & Criminal Law 6–8 min

Author: Gulzar Hashmi • Location: India • Publish Date: 31 Oct 2025

```

Quick Summary

The husband argued his first marriage (both were minors) was void. If void, his second marriage would not be bigamy. The Andhra Pradesh High Court disagreed.

Held: A marriage in breach of the age condition in Section 5(iii) HMA is neither void nor voidable. The only legal result is punishment under Section 18 HMA for those responsible. Therefore, the first marriage stands in law, and bigamy (IPC 494) can apply.

Issues

Is a Hindu marriage with underage parties void ab initio under HMA?
What is the legal effect of violating Section 5(iii) HMA on IPC 494 prosecution?

Rules / Principles

Section 5(iii) HMA

Prescribes minimum ages for marriage. Breach does not make the marriage void/voidable by itself.

Section 18 HMA

Provides punishment for contravention of certain conditions, including age requirement (as applicable at the time).

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline image showing marriage as minors, later second marriage, and prosecution

1959: Marriage performed when husband was ~13 and wife ~9 (as alleged by the husband).

Criminal Complaint: Wife alleged bigamy under IPC 494; others under IPC 109.

Defence: First marriage void ab initio due to breach of Section 5(iii) HMA.

Reliance: Husband cited P.A. Saramma v. G. Ganapatulu (DB) to say the first marriage was void.

High Court (1977): Rejected Saramma view; underage marriage is not void/voidable. Petition to quash prosecution refused.

Arguments

Petitioner (Husband)

First marriage void ab initio due to age breach.
Relied on P.A. Saramma to avoid IPC 494 liability.
Sought quashing of prosecution.

State/Respondent

HMA does not make such marriages void/voidable.
Only Section 18 HMA penalty applies; marriage subsists.
Bigamy charge can continue; no ground to quash.

Judgment

Held: The Division Bench ruling in P.A. Saramma was not correct. A marriage in violation of Section 5(iii) HMA is not void and not voidable. The proper consequence is Section 18 HMA punishment for those responsible.

Effect on IPC 494: Since the first marriage is valid in law, a second marriage can attract bigamy charges.
Relief: Petition to quash prosecution rejected; no relief granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Hindu Marriage Act does not declare an underage marriage void or voidable solely for breach of the age condition. The statute provides a penal response (s.18), not invalidity. Therefore, the marital tie subsists for other legal purposes, including IPC 494.

Why It Matters

Clarifies that breach of age requirement does not void the marriage.
Guides courts on using HMA’s penal provision instead of invalidation.
Determines how IPC 494 applies when first marriage involved minors.

Key Takeaways

Underage marriage under HMA is neither void nor voidable.
Section 18 HMA provides punishment; marriage remains valid.
Bigamy prosecution can proceed if a second marriage is performed.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “A.G.E.”

Age breach ≠ annulment (not void/voidable).
Guilt under Section 18 (penalty for responsible persons).
Effect on IPC 494—first marriage still counts.

3-Step Hook:

Spot the breach: Section 5(iii).
Apply remedy: Section 18 HMA (penalty).
Keep status: Marriage remains valid for other laws.

IRAC

Issue: Does underage marriage under HMA become void, and does that defeat IPC 494?

Rule: Section 5(iii) HMA (age); Section 18 HMA (penalty); no void/voidable tag for age breach.

Application: Though both spouses were minors at marriage, HMA keeps the tie valid; only penal consequence applies.

Conclusion: First marriage stands in law; bigamy case can proceed; quash refused.

Glossary

Void Marriage: A union with no legal effect from the beginning.
Voidable Marriage: Valid until a court annuls it on specific grounds.
Section 18 HMA: Punishment for contravening certain marriage conditions (including age).

FAQs

No. It is not void or voidable under HMA simply for age breach. The law gives a penal response instead.

Those responsible for arranging/solemnising the underage marriage as per the provision (as it stood then).

If the first marriage stands in law, a second marriage can amount to bigamy under IPC 494.

No. It held P.A. Saramma was not correct and refused to follow it.

```

Comment

Nothing for now