Child marriage--Is voidable at the option of contracting party being a child and it cannot per se be said to be void.

S.S.Saron, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("CrPC" - for short) for directing the official respondents No. 1 to 4 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners and not to interfere in their peaceful married life at the behest of respondents No. 5 to 7 who are the father, mother and brother respectively of petitioner No. 1.

2. The petitioners had known each other for the last 3 years and their relationship came to the knowledge of their parents. The date of birth of petitioner No. 1 it is submitted is 30.6.1992. Therefore, she is more than 18 years of age. An affidavit (Annexure P1) has been filed by petitioner No. 1 deposing therein that her date of birth is 30.6.1992. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 had left her parental home and all her certificates are with her parents (respondents No. 5 and 6). The date of birth of petitioner No. 2 is 18.5.1987 and he has deposed an affidavit (Annexure P-2) in this regard. The petitioners on their own on 29.11.2010 solemnized their marriage amongst themselves at Arya Samaj Sanskar Samiti, Ambala Cantt. A copy of the marriage certificate (Annexure P3) issued by Arya Samaj Sanskar Samiti, Ambala Cantt. and the photographs (Annexure P-4) taken at the time of marriage have been placed on record. It is submitted that the marriage is perfectly legal and valid. The petitioners had been trying their level best to persuade their respective families regarding their marriage but could not succeed in getting necessary consent of their parents. The parents (respondents No. 5 and 6) as also the brother (respondent No. 7) of petitioner No. 1 maintained their stubborn attitude being dead against the marriage of petitioner No. 1 to a boy belonging to another caste. It is submitted that the marriage of petitioners is against the wishes of the parents of petitioners. Now the parents (respondents No. 5 and 6) of petitioner No. 1 and other relatives want to marry their daughter (petitioner No. 1) with some other boy. Therefore, the petitioners are being threatened.

3. The case was taken up on 02.12.2010 and as the case was taken up, Mr. Harshit Jain, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of respondents No. 5 and 6. He submitted a photostat copy of the page of birth entries of the children born in the month of January, 1993 in village Meond Kalan. It was submitted that the said photocopy was from the Births and Deaths Register maintained by the Municipal Committee, Jakhal Mandi. At Serial No. 15, the date of birth of Neelam Rani (petitioner No. 1) was mentioned as 30.6.1993. As such, it was submitted that she was less than 18 years of age on the date of her alleged marriage i.e. on 29.11.2010. Therefore, the protection as prayed for according to the learned counsel for respondents No. 5 to 7 is not liable to be given.

4. As already noticed, the learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that all the certificates with respect to the age of Neelam Rani (petitioner No. 1) were with her parents (respondents No. 5 and 6). Therefore, they may be asked to produce the same. In any case, it was submitted that Neelam Rani (petitioner No. 1) was more than 16 years of age and therefore, the marriage can not be said to be invalid and she was entitled for protection. Respondents No. 5 and 6 were asked to produce the necessary certificates of the petitioner No. 1 on the adjourned date.

5. Learned counsel for respondents No. 5 and 6 has today produced the original register, the Photostat copy of which was submitted on the last date of hearing i.e. on 02.12.2010. It is also now submitted that the said register is maintained by the Anganwari Workers of Municipal Committee, Meond Kalan and it was not maintained by the Municipal Committee, Jakhal Mandi as was the stand taken by the learned counsel on the last date of hearing. The register which has been submitted by the learned counsel in Court