KUPPAMMAL Vs. RANGASWAMI CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This proceeding in appeal arises out of an application in the lower court by the personal and property guardian of a minor, seeking the permission of the court under S. 24 read with S. 43 of the guardians and Wards Act, for the marriage of the minor with the proposed bridegroom. The learned District Judge went into the matter on the merits, and in paragraph 9 of his order, he comes to the conclusion that the minor, who seems to possess considerable properties, might well be in a position later to obtain better offers. Upon this ground, the sanction prayed for was not accorded, and the petition was dismissed. It is important to add here that certain other matters were canvassed in the proceedings of the lower court, and certain possible objections examined. These included the fact that the proposed bridegroom was not as wealthy as the bride; that his properties were subject to a mortgage, and that the mother of the bridegroom was supposed to be suffering from some complaint which might render the alliance undesirable. The learned District Judge went into all this, and found that not a single one of these objections could really be sustained. Obviously, he would have accorded the permission without hesitation, but for the ground that I have referred to earlier, that is, that considering the age, community, and economic status of the bride, he thought that she might very well obtain better offers in course of time.

(2.) Needless to say, this is not at all the true perspective of approach which should have been adopted in this matter. Under S. 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, XXV of 1955, the marriage itself could be solemnised as between these parties without permission of Court, the bride being above 15 years of age (she is 16 years old now) and the bridegroom having completed the age of 18. Permission of Court was prayed for, purely for the reason that the bride was a ward of Court, and her step-mother was the personal and property guardian appointed as such under the Guardians and Wards Act. Further, it is important to emphasise that all the near relatives concerned acquiesced in the proposed alliance, during the proceedings in the court below.

(3.) The true perspective of approach, in considering a matter of this kind, has been clearly indicated by their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court in Monijan Bibi v. Dist, Judge, Birbhum, ILR 42 Cal 351: (AIR 1915 Cal 1). The decision of the Bombay High Court in Dahyabhai Margabhai v. Bai Diwali, AIR 1939 Bom 366, follows and reiterates the same principle. As the Calcutta High Court observes, it is no function of a District judge, in deciding a matter of this kind, to constitute himself as a matrimonial agency in the sense that he feels himself bound to consider whether that was the best offer, or a better offer might not eventuate later. On the contrary, where the immediate relatives were united in affirming the desirability of this proposal, the ordinary approach should be that sanction should be given, unless the court is able to discover some substantial objection against the alliance. This is not at all the case here. Apart from this, I have questioned the minor (the bribe, in Chambers), and she definitely states that any alternative offer should at all be considered by those interested in her welfare. She is a girl of over 16 years, and seems to me to be quite intelligent, and very well capable of forming a judgment in her own interest. I must further emphasise that she is a minor only in a strictly legal sense, and that under the personal law governing the parties, she is competent to contract this alliance even without permission of court.