However, a court of equity hearing an action for annulment undoubtedly could determine the rights of the parties in jointly held property and could partition it, could restore the status quo as to property brought to the marriage by the parties, and could otherwise do equity as between the parties. In fact, a wife defending an action for annulment may be awarded temporary alimony and attorney fees. Jones v. Jones, 200 Ga. 571 ( 37 S.E.2d 711) (1946); S v. S, 211 Ga. 365 ( 86 S.E.2d 103) (1955). Pursuant to the 1952 Act, a decree of annulment shall return the parties to their original status but shall not relieve any party of criminal charges "or responsibilities occasioned by such marriage."

204; Pennaman v. Pennaman, 153 Ga. 647 ( 112 S.E. 829); Christopher v. Christopher, 198 Ga. 361 ( 31 S.E.2d 818); Bell v. Bell, 206 Ga. 194 ( 56 S.E.2d 289); Phillips v. Phillips, 211 Ga. 305. The ruling in Moss v. Moss, 147 Ga. 311 (5) ( 93 S.E. 875), concurred in by four Justices, that "Impotency of the wife is not a ground of defense by a husband to a suit brought by the wife to recover permanent alimony, and it was not error to so instruct the jury," has no application here, for the reason that the ruling was made on the trial of the wife's suit for permanent alimony, in which the husband was not seeking to annul the marriage, but in his answer sought a divorce on the ground of the wife's impotency, the sole issues on the trial being the wife's prayers for permanent alimony and for cancellation of certain deeds. As to the right of the wife to temporary alimony in the husband's action for annulment of the marriage, on conflicting evidence as to the invalidity of the marriage, see Jones v. Jones, 200 Ga. 571 ( 37 S.E.2d 711). The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in granting temporary alimony and attorney's fees to the wife.

The Ohio Probate Court found that George was born in 1906 and thus when he married Jewell was fourteen, which would make George under age and the marriage void. See Jones v. Jones, 200 Ga. 571, 37 S.E.2d 711 (1946); Smith v. Smith, 84 Ga. 440, 11 S.E. 496 (1890). This portion of the Ohio Probate Court decision is supported by the record and would not have been disturbed on appeal. Respondent Board was therefore not free to ignore that determination of the Ohio Probate Court.

¶ 14 Ratification of an underage marriage is normally accomplished by the parties merely continuing to live together as husband and wife after the age of majority is attained. See Jones v. Jones, 200 Ga. 571, 37 S.E.2d 711, 712 (1946); Hood v. Hood, 206 Ark. 1057, 178 S.W.2d 670, 673 (1944); May v. Meade, 236 Mich. 109, 210 N.W. 305, 306 (1926). See also 52 Am.Jur. 2d Marriage § 16 (1970).