Manipur High Court
Rinki Pal vs Nemo on 13 July, 2026
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
REPORTABLE
Item No. 14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MAT. APP. No. 1 of 2026
1. Rinki Pal, aged about 23 years, W/o Devanan
Barman of Chandamari, Cooch Behar - I, P.O. &
P.S. Putimari, Koch Bihar District, West Bengal -
736157, presently residing at Mantripukhri, P.O.
Mantripukhri, P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District,
Manipur - 795002.
2. Devanan Barman, aged about 31 years, S/o Ratan
Barman of Masuwa, Gobardhana, Masua,
Barpeta, P.O. Bhella, P.S. Barpeta, District -
Barpeta, Assam - 781313, presently residing at
Mantripukhri, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S. Heingang,
Imphal East District, Manipur - 795002.
... Appellants
- Versus -
NEMO
... Respondent
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For appellants : Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, Advocate
For respondent : NEMO
Date of order : 13.07.2026
P a g e 1 | 13
O R D E R
[M. Sundar, CJ]
[1] The following abbreviations/short forms have been used
in this order (for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity):
Sl. No. Abbreviation/Short
Form/other short Full Form/Expansion
references
1. Hindu Marriage Act The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of
1955)
2. Child Marriage Act The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act,
2006 (6 of 2007)
3. CPC Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
4. said Family Court Family Court, Imphal East, Manipur at
Lamphelpat
5. said matrimonial suit Matrimonial (Divorce) Suit No. 95 of
2025
6. impugned order Order dated 06.12.2025 made by said
Family Court in said Matrimonial Suit
7. Family Courts Act Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984)
8. DoB Date of Birth
[2] Captioned matrimonial appeal has been presented in this
Court on 13.01.2026 and it is a statutory appeal under Section 19 of
Family Courts Act, assailing impugned order.
[3] Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, learned counsel on record for the
two appellants (to be noted, two appellants, as of today, are spouses,
Hindus, their marriage having been solemnized in accordance with
Hindu Rites and customs on 25.08.2016).
P a g e 2 | 13
[4] The two appellants joined together and filed said
matrimonial suit in said Family Court inter alia under Section 13B of
Hindu Marriage Act with a prayer for dissolution of their marriage as
they are convinced that their marriage has inter alia irretrievably broken
down.
[5] The afore-referred said matrimonial suit is dated
01.12.2025, it was taken on the file of said Family Court on 06.12.2025
and said Family Court vide impugned order, which is a short order,
dismissed the said matrimonial suit on the short point that marriage
between the appellants is void as the bride (1st appellant) had not
completed 18 (eighteen) years of age on the date of marriage.
Aggrieved both appellants have filed captioned statutory appeal in this
Court. Captioned statutory appeal was taken up and heard out with the
consent of Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, learned counsel on record for both
appellants.
[6] Short facts (shorn of elaboration) i.e., facts that are
imperative for appreciating instant order are that DoB of second
appellant is 01.02.1994 and DoB of first appellant is 12.01.2002 (to be
noted, in the impugned order, it has been erroneously recorded that
plaintiff No. 2 who is appellant No. 2 before this Court was 14 years of
age on the date of marriage); that ‘appellant No. 1’ shall be referred to
as ‘wife’ and ‘appellant No. 2’ shall be referred to ‘husband’ for the sake
P a g e 3 | 13
of convenience and clarity; that marriage between the appellants was
solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs on 25.08.2016; that from
the wedlock a male child was born on 23.11.2018; that as already
alluded to supra, said matrimonial suit under Section 13B of Hindu
Marriage Act dated 01.12.2025 was taken on the file of said Family
Court on 06.12.2025; that said Family Court dismissed the said
matrimonial suit on the short point that marriage between the
appellants was void as wife had not completed the age of 18 years on
the date of marriage i.e., 25.08.2016 (to be noted, wife was 14 years,
7 months and 13 days old on the date of marriage).
[7] The entire captioned appeal turns on a very short point
and that short point is, whether the marriage that was solemnized
between the appellants as per Hindu rites and customs on 25.08.2016,
is void.
[8] To address the afore-referred point, it will suffice to
examine/advert to Section 5, more particularly Section 5(iii), Sections
11 and 12 of Hindu Marriage Act and Section 3 of Child Marriage Act.
Before proceeding further, it is deemed appropriate to record that
Hindu Marriage Act kicked in i.e., came into force on 18.05.1955 and
Child Marriage Act which is a conditional legislation kicked in vide
Notification of Central Government being SO 1850(E) dated
30.10.2007. It will suffice to record that this Court notices that both
P a g e 4 | 13
Hindu Marriage Act, more particularly Sections 5(iii), 11 and 12 as well
as Section 3 of Child Marriage Act were operating on the date of
marriage of appellants.
[9] Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act to the extent relevant
reads as follows:
‘5. Conditions for a Hindu Marriage. – A marriage
may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following
conditions are fulfilled, namely:-
(i) ……………………………………………………………..
(ii) ……………………………………………………………..
(a) …………………………………………………….
(b) …………………………………………………….
(c) …………………………………………………….
(iii) the bridegroom has completed the age of twenty-
one years, and the bride, the age of eighteen
years at the time of marriage;
(iv) ……………………………………………………………..
(v) …………………………………………………………….’
Section 11 and 12 of Hindu Marriage Act read as follows:
’11. Void Marriages. – Any marriage solemnized
after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void
and may, on a petition presented by either party thereto
against the other party, be so declared by a decree of
nullity if it contravenes any one of the conditions
specified in clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5.’’12. Voidable marriages. –
(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after
the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and
may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the
following grounds namely:-
(a) that the marriage has not been
consummated owing to the impotence of the
respondent; orP a g e 5 | 13
(b) that the marriage is in contravention of the
condition specified in clause (ii) of section 5; or
(c) that the consent of the petitioner, or where
the consent of the guardian in marriage of the
petitioner [was required under section 5 as it
stood immediately before the commencement
of the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment)
Act, 1978 (2 of 1978)”], the consent of such
guardian was obtained by force or by fraud as
to the nature of the ceremony or as to any
material fact or circumstance concerning the
respondent); or
(d) that the respondent was at the time of the
marriage pregnant by some person other than
the petitioner.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), no petition for annulling a marriage-
(a) on the ground specified in clause (c) of
sub-section (1) shall be entertained if-
(i) the petition is presented more than
one year after the force had ceased to
operate or, as the case may be, the fraud
had been discovered; or
(ii) the petitioner has, with his or her
full consent, lived with the other party to
the marriage as husband or wife after the
force had ceased to operate or, as the
case may be, the fraud had been
discovered;
(b) on the ground specified in clause (d) of
sub-section (1) shall be entertained unless the
court is satisfied-
(i) that the petitioner was at the time
of the marriage ignorant of the facts
alleged;
(ii) that proceedings have been
instituted in the case of a marriage
P a g e 6 | 13
solemnised before the commencement of
this Act within one year of such
commencement and in the case of
marriages solemnised after such
commencement within one year from the
date of the marriage; and
(iii) that marital intercourse with the
consent of the petitioner has not taken
place since the discovery by the petitioner
of the existence of the said ground.’
[10] A careful perusal of Sections 11 and 12 of Hindu Marriage
Act brings to light that it does not take within its sweep / purview clause
(iii) of Section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act. This statutory scheme/legal
architecture of Hindu Marriage Act necessarily means that a marriage
solemnized between two Hindus, where at the time of marriage, the
bride has not completed 18 years of age, is neither void nor voidable
under Hindu Marriage Act but it has been explicitly set out to be
voidable vide Section 3 read with Section 2(b) and 2(a) of Child
Marriage Act which to the extent relevant to instant case read as
follows:
‘3. Child marriages to be voidable at the option of
contracting party being a child. –
(1) ……………………………………………………………………
(2) If at the time of filing a petition, the petitioner is
a minor, the petition may be filed through his or her
guardian or next friend along with the Child Marriage
Prohibition Officer.
(3) The petition under this section may be filed at any
time but before the child filing the petition completes
two years of attaining majority.
P a g e 7 | 13
(4) While granting a decree of nullity under this
section, the district court shall make an order directing
both the parties to the marriage and their parents or
their guardians to return to the other party, his or her
parents or guardian, as the case may be, the money,
valuables, ornaments and other gifts received on the
occasion of the marriage by them from the other side,
or an amount equal to the value of such valuables,
ornaments, other gifts and money:
Provided that no order under this section shall be
passed unless the concerned parties have been given
notices to appear before the district court and show
cause why such order should not be passed.’‘2. Definitions. – In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires, –
(a) “child” means a person who, if a male, has not
completed twenty-one years of age, and if a female,
has not completed eighteen years of age;
(b) “child marriage” means a marriage to which
either of the contracting parties is a child;’[11] To sum up, a conjoint reading of Sections 5(iii), 11 and 12
of Hindu Marriage Act and Sections 3, 2(b) and 2(a) of Child Marriage
Act in that order, makes it clear that marriage between the two
appellants which was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs on
25.08.2016 is voidable and not void.
[12] As regards the point that is being examined, this Court
deems it appropriate to write that two case laws rendered by two other
High Courts are relevant. The first is T. Sivakumar -vs- Inspector
of Police, Thiruvallur Town Police Station, Thiruvallur District
rendered by a Hon’ble Full Bench (3 Hon’ble Judges) of Madras High
P a g e 8 | 13
Court, reported in AIR 2012 Mad 62 (FB) : 2011 SCC OnLine Mad
1722. T. Sivakumar was on a reference, and one of the points of
reference was whether a Hindu marriage contracted by a person with
a girl of less than 18 years of age could be said to be valid marriage
and the custody of the said girl be given to the husband. Hon’ble Full
Bench of Madras High Court, after making a survey on Hindu Marriage
Act, Child Marriage Act and predecessor statute of Child Marriage Act
i.e., Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929, concluded that marriage
between two Hindus where the bride has not completed 18 years of
age, is voidable. In the instant case, neither party has chosen to opt
and take the Section 3 of Child Marriage Act or any other route and
sought a decree of annulment/nullity qua their marriage. To be noted,
as of 01.12.2025/06.12.2025 two years after attending majority had
been completed/had elapsed. This means that the option of appellants
to take voidable route is closed owing sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of
Child Marriage Act. On the contrary, both appellants have joined
together (joined together solely for filing a suit for dissolution of
marriage) and filed a joint petition (said matrimonial suit) under Section
13B of Hindu Marriage Act about which there is allusion supra. In this
view of the matter, the marriage between the appellants is not void as
held by said Family Court in the impugned order. This further means
that the impugned order of the said Family Court is plainly incorrect.
P a g e 9 | 13
[13] The second case law of relevance was rendered by a
Hon’ble Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh
and this is a decision dated 26.08.2021 made in FAO-855-2021 in the
case of Yogesh Kumar -vs- Priya. In Yogesh Kumar, in a factual
matrix that is very close to the case at hand, Division Bench of Punjab
& Haryana High Court followed Sivakumar rendered by Madras High
Court, another judgment of Delhi High Court and held that parties are
entitled to a decree of divorce vide Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act.
[14] Before writing the operative portion of instant order, this
Court deems it appropriate to record some more facts. These facts are,
while wife was 14 years, 7 month and 13 days old on the date of
marriage as already alluded to supra, the husband was 22 years 6
months and 24 days old on the date of marriage (to be noted, this
means that husband had completed 21 years on the date of marriage).
On 06.12.2025 when the said matrimonial suit dated 01.12.2025 was
taken on the file of said Family Court, wife was 23 years, 11 months
and 24 days old and husband was 31 years, 10 months and 5 days old.
This only reinforces the position that both appellants were clearly
entitled to resort to Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act and they did not
have the option seeking annulment/nullity of their marriage by
resorting to ‘voidable at the option of contracting parties’ route as two
years from the dates of attaining majority had elapsed and sub-Section
P a g e 10 | 13
(3) of Section 3 of Child Marriage Act extinguishes their rights in this
regard.
[15] As regards the minor child born from the wedlock (to be
noted, a male child from the wedlock was born on 23.11.2018 and
therefore is a little over 7 and half years of age as of today) is said to
be residing with his maternal grandparents in West Bengal. It is also to
be noted that there is a specific averment in this regard in the said
matrimonial suit filed in said Family Court. However, this Court refrains
itself from expressing any opinion or view on the custody qua minor
child and/or the joint prayer for dissolution of marriage made by the
appellants as this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned
order of said Family Court and remit the matter back to Family Court
for considering the Section 13B matrimonial suit dated 01.12.2025 on
its own merits and in accordance with law.
[16] As regards said Family Court, considering the convenience
of the parties who may have to be present before said Family Court,
Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, learned counsel on record for appellants made
a request to this Court that the said matrimonial suit may please be
remitted to Family Court, Manipur at Lamphelpat instead of said Family
Court i.e., Family Court, Imphal East at Lamphelpat. In this regard, this
Court deems it appropriate to record one aspect i.e., an aspect on law.
Section 24 of CPC makes it clear that a High Court can transfer any suit
P a g e 11 | 13
or proceedings to any competent Court subordinate to it and that a
High Court can do so on its own motion also.
[17] Therefore the afore-referred request of learned counsel on
record for appellants to remit the matter to Family Court, Manipur at
Lamphelpat instead of Family Court, Imphal East at Lamphelpat is
acceded to.
[18] In the light of narration, discussion and dispositive
reasoning set out supra, the following order is made :
(a) impugned order dated 06.12.2025 made in
Matrimonial (Divorce) Suit No. 95 of 2025 on the
file of Family Court, Imphal East, Manipur at
Lamphelpat is set aside;
(b) Matrimonial (Divorce) Suit No. 95 of 2025 is
remitted back to Family Court but to Family Court,
Manipur at Lamphelpat for taking up the matter
considering the same and disposing of the said
matrimonial suit on its own merits and in
accordance with law;
(c) Family Court, Manipur at Lamphelpat shall now
retry the matrimonial suit i.e., Matrimonial
(Divorce) Suit No. 95 of 2025 on its own merits and
in accordance with law. Family Court, Imphal East,
P a g e 12 | 13
Manipur is directed to transfer/transmit entire suitfile and suit records qua Matrimonial (Divorce) Suit
No. 95 of 2025 to Family Court, Manipur at
Lamphelpat forthwith.
[19] Captioned matrimonial appeal is allowed in part albeit with
afore-referred observations and directions. There shall be no order as
to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Bipin
P.S. I : Upload forthwith.
P.S. II : All concerned will stand bound by web copy uploaded in High Court
website inter alia as the same is QR coded.
P.S. III : On instant order being uploaded on official website of this High
Court, Family Court, Imphal East at Lamphelpat shall forthwith
transfer the entire case records and case files of Matrimonial
(Divorce) Suit No. 95 of 2025 to Family Court, Manipur at
Lamphelpat, without waiting for communication of this order.
P.S. IV : Registry to communicate this order to Family Court, Imphal East at
Lamphelpat and Family Court, Manipur at Lamphelpat forthwith.
Digitally signed by
KHOIROM KHOIROM
BIPINCHAN BIPINCHANDRA
SINGH
DRA SINGH Date: 2026.07.13
07:31:42 +05’30’
P a g e 13 | 13
