THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.547 of 2002 ` JUDGMENT: (per GVS, J) This appeal is directed against the order, dated 29.12.2000 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, dismissing O.P.No.14 of 1999 filed by the appellant herein under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) for declaration of his marriage with the respondent as null and void. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent and perused the records. The appellant is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage took place on 25.06.1997. It is not disputed that during their wedlock, the respondent gave birth to a male child. The appellant filed O.P.No.14 of 1999 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur under Section 11 of the Act seeking declaration that the marriage between himself and the respondent was null and void on the ground that by the date of their marriage, which took place on 25.06.1997, the respondent was already married to one Y.Sudarsan Reddy on 12.05.1993 and the said first marriage was subsisting. The respondent herein filed a counter opposing the said application and contending that the said Sudarsan Reddy became a cancer patient and discarded her. The marriage with Sudarsan Reddy was dissolved by divorce, and later, she married the appellant. She also contended that the appellant married her with full knowledge of the factum of her earlier marriage with Sudarsan Reddy and also the fact that the said first marriage ended in divorce. During enquiry, the appellant was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 and A.2 were marked and the respondent was examined as R.W.1 and two other witnesses R.Ws.2 and 3 were examined on her behalf and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked. The learned Senior Civil Judge after considering the evidence on record dismissed the said application mainly on the ground that by the date of the first marriage of the respondent herein with Sudarsan Reddy that took place on 12.05.1993, the respondent was a minor and therefore, the said first marriage was void and hence, the second marriage of the respondent with the appellant was valid and therefore, the appellant is not entitled for the declaration prayed for. In coming to the said conclusion, the learned Senior Civil Judge has mainly relied upon the age mentioned in the O.P. wherein she was stated to be aged 23 years as on 31.03.1999. The first marriage took place on 12.05.1993 and therefore, by the date of the first marriage, the respondent was found to be a minor and so the said marriage with Sudarsan Reddy was found to be void. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that in M.C.No.6 of 1994, which was filed by the respondent against the first husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance on 20.07.1994, her age was shown as 20 years. By the date of her giving evidence as R.W.1 on 19.10.2000, the respondent has declared her age as 25 years. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that even on her own showing, she was a major by the date of the first marriage on 12.05.1993 and the learned Senior Civil Judge erred in holding that she was minor and therefore the first marriage was void. As can be seen from the impugned order and the material on record, there is no specific pleading by either side regarding the age of the respondent nor was there any issue framed for consideration as to whether the respondent was minor or major as on the date of the first marriage i.e. 12.05.1993 and there is no discussion regarding the legal consequences thereof. Without there being any pleading in that regard and no issue being framed, the learned Senior Civil Judge appears to have taken the age mentioned in the cause title of the petition and held that the respondent was minor by the date of the first marriage and therefore, the said first marriage was void. There was no such pleading regarding the validity or otherwise of the first marriage and there was no opportunity to other side to produce any evidence in that regard. In the circumstances, the question whether or not she was minor as on the date of the first marriage has become a relevant issue to be resolved in the matter. It is considered that opportunity should be given to both sides to place on record their respective pleadings in that regard and also produce evidence, if any, they choose to adduce in support of their respective contentions and thereafter, the Court shall record appropriate finding based on the evidence as to whether the respondent was minor or major as on the date of the first marriage and whether or not the first marriage has become void. With a view to give such opportunity to both sides, it is considered just and proper to remit the matter to the trial Court. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur for fresh disposal according to law and after giving opportunity to both sides to plead and adduce evidence, if any they may choose to let in. Having regard to the fact that the O.P. is of the year 1999, the learned Senior Civil Judge is directed to dispose of the same within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the result, the appeal is disposed of as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J 20th JANUARY, 2010. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J kvni