Judgment : This appeal is against the judgment in C.M.A.No.22 of 1988, in which the learned District Judge, Chengalpet, has reversed the finding of the trial court in H.M.O.P.No.53 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram. .2. The short facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner had filed a petition under Secs.5(iii), 11 and 12(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking a declaration that the marriage between the parties is null and void on the ground that the respondent was a minor on the date of marriage, that the consent of the guardian was not obtained and on the ground that the respondent was an impotent person at the time of marriage. The petition was opposed by the respondent and after enquiry, the learned Subordinate Judge has allowed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent has filed C.M.ANo.22 of 1988 before the learned District Judge, Chengalpet. On a consideration of the materials before him, the learned District Judge has found that none of the grounds on which the declaration is sought for are made out and dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come forward with this second appeal. 3. Mr.Vimalanathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that regarding impotency, the evidence of the Doctor is not helpful, that at an earlier point of time the petitioner sought for medical examination of the respondent, but because of the unwillingness expressed by the respondent, she was not sent for medical examination and that circumstance has not been taken proper note by the lower appellate court and the examination of the Doctor was done only after 7 years after the filing of the petition disproving impotency. He further submits that the Doctor who had conducted the scan on the respondent was not examined. Regarding the void or voidable nature of the marriage, the learned counsel would submit that as per the Hindu Marriage Act, the minority of any one of the parties to the marriage was either void or voidable and there is a lacuna in the Act and it is for the courts to interpret and fill up the lacuna. Regarding the void or voidable nature of the marriage, the learned counsel would submit that as per the Hindu Marriage Act, the minority of any one of the parties to the marriage was either void or voidable and there is a lacuna in the Act and it is for the courts to interpret and fill up the lacuna. He would further submit that because of the amendment of Child Marriage Act, the question of getting consent of the guardian did not arise under that Act, and after the amendment repealing the section in the Child Marriage Act, no corresponding enactment has been made in the Hindu Marriage Act. It is his submission that thus the question of law arises in this regard. .4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and I find none of the grounds can be sustained. Regarding impotency, Dr.Bhagyavathi who had examined the respondent has given a clear and categoric opinion that Sumitra Bai, namely, the respondent herein is capable of having sexual intercourse. The medical report given by her has also been marked in this case. In the report the Doctor has stated that Sumitra Bai was maintaining normal health and normal figure. Her breast was normal commensurate to her figure and her uterus was also normal and the ovaries are also normal. The Doctor has very fairly pointed out that there was abnormal hair growth over chin, 2 cheeks in his report marked as exhibit. From the existence of some hair in those places, one cannot straightaway come to a conclusion that she must have been impotent and not capable to have sexual intercourse. No doubt, she was examined in 1992, but there is no evidence that she must have been impotent at an earlier point of time and only at a later point of time she must have become potent. No medical evidence is produced to prove the same. 5. Regarding the non-examination of the Doctor who had conducted the scan, I do not find any relevance. In a well considered judgment the trial court has dealt with this aspect of the case and decided against the petitioner. I do not find any ground whatsoever to interfere in this regard. 6. 5. Regarding the non-examination of the Doctor who had conducted the scan, I do not find any relevance. In a well considered judgment the trial court has dealt with this aspect of the case and decided against the petitioner. I do not find any ground whatsoever to interfere in this regard. 6. Regarding the void or voidable nature of the marriage, because the respondent was a minor at the time of marriage, the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act do not provide to hold such marriage as void or voidable. As per Sec.5 which stipulates the conditions for a marriage, a marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely, “(iii) the bridegroom has completed the age of (twenty-one years) and the bride the age of (eighteen years) at the time of the marriage.” Under Sec.11, any violation of Sec.5(iii) is not included as a void marriage, while so there is no point in saying that there is lacuna in the Hindu Marriage Act and courts have to decide that aspect that the marriage is void or voidable. It is not for the courts to intervene. It is the function of the legislature. Courts are always anxious to keep the marriage intact. While so, when the statute does not provide for nullity of a marriage or voidability of a marriage on such a ground, I am clear that courts will not go to the extent of holding the marriage void on this ground. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would place reliance upon the view of the learned author Ramesh Chandra Nagpal in his book ‘Modern Hindu Law’ published by Eastern Book Company, at page 116: “Kinds of Marriages: There are three types of marriages under this Act, (i) valid, (ii) void and (iii) voidable. Section 11 deals with void marriages and Sec.12 with the voidable ones. But all other marriages which are not covered by these two sections are not valid. The drafting of the Act, from this point of view, is indeed defective. The violation of Secs.7 and 15 also renders a marriage void or non-existent but neither those sections nor Secs.11 and 12 guide us explicitly as to this effect of the violation of the provisions of those sections.” I do not agree with the learned author for the reasons stated above. 7. The violation of Secs.7 and 15 also renders a marriage void or non-existent but neither those sections nor Secs.11 and 12 guide us explicitly as to this effect of the violation of the provisions of those sections.” I do not agree with the learned author for the reasons stated above. 7. In view of the above, I do not find any question of law involved in this second appeal and hence it deserves to be dismissed and shall stand dismissed.