Banerji and Aikman, JJ.
1. This was a suit brought by the respondent against the appellant, his father-in-law, in which he prayed that his wife, the daughter of the defendant, be allowed to live with him, and that her father be restrained from offering obstruction to her doing so. The plaintiff was married to defendant's daughter on the 14th of May 1894. The marriage was celebrated without the consent of the defendant by the girl's mother, whom the defendant had ceased to support for a number of years. It has been found that the girl had attained marriageable age and that by reason of the father not supporting his wife and daughter the mother and mother's brother, with whom they had been living, secretly married the girl to the plaintiff. It has been found that the usual rites of marriage were gone through, and that the relationship between the plaintiff and the girl was not such as to render the marriage illegal under Hindu Law. The question which was raised in the lower Courts was whether the marriage under such circumstances was valid according to Hindu Law. The Subordinate Judge, on the authority of the rulings cited by him in his judgment, held that it was a valid marriage and granted to the plaintiff the relief prayed for. Against this decree the defendant has preferred the present appeal, and it has been contended that the marriage of the plaintiff with the defendant's daughter without the defendant's consent was not a valid marriage. We are unable to accept this contention. A uniform course of rulings, dating back to 1843 see Baee Rulyat and Ors. v. Jey Chund Kewul 1 Morley's Digest, 181 has laid down that the want of a guardian's consent would not invalidate a marriage actually and properly celebrated. The authorities on the subject are all collected and carefully reviewed in the learned judgment of Muttusami Ayyar and Shephard, JJ., in Venkatacharyulu v. Rangacharyulu I.L.R. 14 Mad. 316, and it seems to us unnecessary to refer to them in detail. In that case, upon the authorities referred to, it was held by the learned Judges that, where there is gift in marriage by the legal guardian and the marriage rites were duly solemnized, the marriage is irrevocable. The mother is a legal guardian of the daughter, though the father is a preferential guardian. If the girl was given away in marriage by her mother and all the necessary rites were duly performed that would make the marriage a valid marriage, and in the absence of force or fraud such marriage would not be regarded as void by reason of the father of the girl not consenting to it. Mr. Madho Prasad on behalf of the appellant concedes that mere absence of the father's consent would not render the marriage void unless there was force or fraud. In this case it is admitted that there was no force, and we are unable to see how it can be urged that the marriage was celebrated by fraud. As we have said above, the learned Subordinate Judge has found that the father of the girl behaved badly towards his wife and daughter and treated them in a most unnatural manner; that for years he had deserted them, and that in consequence of his conduct they were living with the brother of the mother of the girl who supported and maintained both. The girl had attained a marriageable age, and the defendant, her father, had taken no steps to get her married. It was under such circumstances that the mother and her brother arranged with the plaintiff for the marriage of the girl with the plaintiff, took her to his house and there celebrated the marriage. We cannot hold under these circumstances that any fraud was committed. This appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.