JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - During consolidation operations the claim of the parties rested on the answer to the question whether Snit. Chandra Kali, respondent No. 4, was the widow of Bhagwati deceased. The Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have each found this fact against the petitioner. The finding is that she was the widow of Bhagwati. This finding and the consequential rejection of the petitioner's claim to the disputed plots has been challenged in the present writ petitions on two principal grounds. 2. It was urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not authorised by Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act to hold an enquiry and take additional evidence in it. In this case he examined in his own court Smt. Chandra Kali, respondent, and Smt. Mahari, the petitioner, and has given his findings on a consideration of the evidence recorded by him. In Swastik Oil Mills Ltd. v. H.B. Munshi, A.I.R. 1968 SC 843 the Supreme Court held that whenever a power is conferred on an authority to revise an order, and the authority is entitled to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the order and to pass such suitable orders as the authority may think fit in the circumstances of the particular case before it, when exercising such powers, the authority is entitled to hold an enquiry or direct an enquiry to be held, and, for that purpose, admit additional material. In view of this declaration of law by the Supreme Court the petitioner's case cannot be upheld. 3. The second question raised by the learned counsel was a little more interesting. It was urged that Smt. Chandra Kali's case was that she had been married in 1959 and that Bhagwati died about 15 days after the wedding. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has found that in August, 1967, when he examined Smt. Chandra Kali in the witness-box, she looked about 18 or 19 years in age. That was her statement as well. So, in 1959 she would have been 10 or 11 years of age at the time of her marriage. It has also been found that Bhagwati was at that time 18 years of age. On these admitted facts the position would be that the alleged marriage was solemnized between two minors. According to Mr. That was her statement as well. So, in 1959 she would have been 10 or 11 years of age at the time of her marriage. It has also been found that Bhagwati was at that time 18 years of age. On these admitted facts the position would be that the alleged marriage was solemnized between two minors. According to Mr. Kakker, appearing for the petitioner, such a marriage is null and void. 4. Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provides :- "5. Conditions for a Hindu marriage :-A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely :- (i) neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage; (ii) neither party is an idiot or a lunatic at the time of the marriage; (iii) the bridegroom has completed the age of eighteen years and the bride the age of fifteen years at the time of the marriage; (iv) the parties are not within the degree of prohibited relationship, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two; (v) the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two; (vi) where the bride has not completed the age of eighteen years, the consent of her guardian in marriage, if any, has been obtained for the marriage." 5. This section gives the conditions which must exist for the solemnisation of a marriage between two Hindus. Section 11 provides that any marriage solemnized after the commencement of this Act in contravention of the conditions specified in clause (i) , (iv) and (v) of Section 5 shall be null and void and may on a petition be so declared by, a decree of nullity. Section 12 provides that any marriage solemnized whether before or after the commencement of this Act in contravention of the conditions specified in clauses (ii) and (vi) of Section 5 shall be voidable. Thus, contravention of clause (i) , (iv) and (v) makes the marriage null and void whereas the contravention of clauses (ii) and (vi) of Section 5 makes the marriage voidable. Neither of the two results have been declared by the Act to follow if there is a contravention of clause (iii) of Section 5 of the Act. Thus, contravention of clause (i) , (iv) and (v) makes the marriage null and void whereas the contravention of clauses (ii) and (vi) of Section 5 makes the marriage voidable. Neither of the two results have been declared by the Act to follow if there is a contravention of clause (iii) of Section 5 of the Act. Since the Act specifically provides for the cases where the marriage is to be null and void, holding that contravention of clause (iii) would equally render the marriage ab initio null and void would amount to an amendment of Section 11. That could be done only by the legislature and not by Courts in the guise of interpretation. 6. Section 18 of the Act specifically provides a punishment if a person procures a marriage of himself or her-self to be solemnized in contravention of the conditions specified inter alia in clause (iii) of Section 5. The concerned person is liable to simple imprisonment which may extend to 15 days or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both in case of such contravention. In the present case there was a contravention of clause (iii) . So Smt. Chandra Kali would have been liable to a fine or imprisonment or both as provided in Section 18. But the provision of a punishment for contravening a provision of the Act would not necessarily make the act, which had actually been performed in contravention of the provision, a total nullity. It will not become void so as to be unenforceable in a court of law. In my opinion though the conduct of solemnizing a marriage in contravention of clause (iii) may result in the punishment of the marrying spouses, yet the marriage would not become null and void with its far reaching and serious consequences. The marriage would remain valid in law and enforceable and recognizable in a court of law. 7. It was urged that a marriage between Hindus performed after the commencement of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is governed by that Act. This Act recognises that a marriage is based upon consent and is, in that light a contract rather than a sacrament as known to the Hindu Personal Law. In my opinion this aspect of law does not require any consideration because it does not affect the case. This point was not specifically taken before the "'consolidation authorities. This Act recognises that a marriage is based upon consent and is, in that light a contract rather than a sacrament as known to the Hindu Personal Law. In my opinion this aspect of law does not require any consideration because it does not affect the case. This point was not specifically taken before the "'consolidation authorities. The question whether the consent of the minors or their guardians was actually in existence at the time of the marriage is a question of fact. If the plea had been taken a finding would have been given. The fact that no such consent was there, cannot be assumed. Hence, assuming that the law requires consent between two Hindus who want to be married, the petitioner would not be benefited from it because it would require investigation into facts. Such a mixed question cannot be raised for the first time in a writ petition. 8. In my opinion the petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed with costs.