ORDER
Motilal B. Naik, J
1. The appellant is the wife. Aggrieved by the decision rendered by the lower Court in I.A. No.1337 of 1994 in O.P. No.51 of 1994 dated 22-9-1994, she has approached this Court by way of this appeal.
2. Few facts are necessary for disposing of this appeal. The wife presented an application in O.P.No.51 of 1994 on the file of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ongole, under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a declaration that the marriage between the parties is a voidable marriage on the allegation that the respondent-husband is not a competent person to consumate the marriage. The said application was rejected on the premise that in terms of Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, any petition under Hindu Marriage Act has to be filed before the Court, after completion of one year of marital period. The lower Court felt that the marriage between the parties took place
in the month of May, 1993. Though in the month of May, 1993, the marriage had taken place, the petition was presented seeking declaration within one year from the date of the marriage and thus held since the application ‘ for declaration is filed within one year of the marriage, such an application is not entertainable under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act and thus rejected the application.
3. The wife who has presented the petition, made yet another effort before the Court by filing IA No.1337 of 1994 seeking to review the order by indicating that in terms of Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage act, there is no time prescribed for presenting the application and Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act has no application to the facts of the present case. But, however, the lower Court, having regard to its earlier view, rejected the review petition also in I. A.No. 1337 of 1997 by order dated 22-9-1994, against which, the present appeal is filed.
4. We have heard Sri Ananda Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The respondent though received the notice, is not being represented cither by a Counsel or present in person before this Court.
5. A combined reading of Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 12 of the same Act, we arc of the view, Section 14 applies in cases where the marriage is sought to be dissolved and a decree of divorce is sought on various grounds, provided therein; whereas Section 12 is provided for seeking a declaration that the marriage is void on certain grounds which are provided therein. On a further reading of Section 12(2)(a), what is found is no petition for annulling a marriage can 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, a fraud had been discovered. Sub-clause (c) of subsection (1) of Section 12 is referable to where the consent of the parties to the marriage or guardian was obtained by force or by fraud and there is a stipulation for filing the application under Section 12. Insofar as presenting a petition under Section 12 of the Act is concerned, it can be presented notwithstanding the time of one year prescribed under Section 14 of the Act.
6. We are therefore of the view that in the absence of any stipulation of time by the Legislature for presenting an application under Section 12, the lower Court is not justified in rejecting the application on the ground that the application should have been filed after one year of the marriage as provided under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
7. The Hindu Law and Usage, 14th Edition of Mayne, entry at page 288, it is stated by the author with regard to Section 14, thus : “this section places the restriction on the Court only for entertaining the petitions for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. For other reliefs under the Act, this Section 14 has no application.”
8. It is clear from the said entry, that Section 14 imposes restriction for obtaining relief of dissolution of the marriage by decree of divorce under Section 13 only, but not a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
9. We are therefore of the view that the order of the trial Court, in the light of the provisions contemplated under Section 12, which are distinct, cannot be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court and the trial Court shall proceed to decide the matter afresh on
merits according to law. It is desired that the trial Court will dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.