Raj Mohan Singh, J.

1. This petition has been filed by Jaswinder Kaur, mother of Harwinder Singh @ Happy, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against order dated 2.1.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Moga (Annexure P-5) refusing to grant custody of respondent No. 4 Satvir Kaur @ Gagan (daughter-in-law of the petitioner) along with her minor child to the petitioner.

2. Harwinder Singh @ Happy married to respondent No. 4. FIR No. 132 dated 9.12.2013 under Sections 363, 366-A, 382, 354, 376, 506, 323 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga was registered by father of respondent No. 4, namely, Gurdeep Singh (respondent No. 5). Harwinder Singh @ Happy was arrested in the aforesaid case and respondent No. 4 was sent to Nari Niketan i.e. State Protective Home, Jalandhar. During the stay of respondent No. 4 in Nari Niketan, she has been blessed with a son, who is now aged more than six months.

3. Respondent No. 4 is still minor. Parents of the girl/respondent No. 4 submitted an application before Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nihal Singh Wala for taking custody of minor respondent No. 4. The girl was produced from Nari Niketan and was allowed to talk to the parents. Thereafter, statement of respondent No. 4 was recorded, wherein, she stated that she does not want to go with her parents as she has threat perception at their hands. Accordingly, custody in favour of parents of respondent No. 4 was declined and respondent No. 4 was sent back to Nari Niketan (Protection Home), Jalandhar, vide order dated 10.3.2014 (Annexure P-2) passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nihal Singh Wala.

4. The statement of respondent No. 4-prosecutrix has been recorded in the Court as PW-1, wherein, she has reiterated the factum of marriage with accused Harwinder Singh @ Happy with her own sweet will without any pressure whatsoever. Even before the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, respondent No. 4 got her statement recorded that she does not want to accompany her parents and she wants to go her in-law's house, where her mother-in- law and father-in-law are living.

5. Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 2.1.2015 (Annexure P-5), dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for taking custody of the prosecutrix Satvir Kaur (minor) by observing that prosecutrix is not ready to accompany with her father. Prosecutrix is minor being born on 24.3.1998, therefore, custody of minor cannot be given to mother-in-law. For the custody of minor child, Additional Sessions Judge relegated the parties to take recourse to civil proceedings. Respondent No. 4 was accordingly sent back to Nari Niketan, Jalandhar. The aforesaid order dated 2.1.2015 has been assailed in the present petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Smt. Lila Gupta vs. Laxmi Narain and others, AIR 1978 Supreme Court, 1351. The Court observed, while referring to Sections 5, 11 and 12 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') in the following manner:-

"A comprehensive review of the relevant provisions of the Act unmistakably manifests the legislative thrust that every marriage solemnised in contravention or one of other condition prescribed for valid marriage is not void. Section 5 prescribes six conditions for valid marriage. Section 11 tenders marriage solemnised in contravention of conditions (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5 only, void. Two incontrovertible propositions emerge from a combined reading of Sections 5 and 11 and other provisions of the Act, that the Act specifies conditions for valid marriage and a marriage contracted in breach of some but not all of them renders the marriage void. The statute thus prescribes conditions for valid marriage and also does not leave it to inference that each one of such conditions is mandatory and a contravention, violation or breach of any one of them would be treated as a breach of a prerequisite for a valid marriage rendering it void. The law while prescribing conditions for valid marriage simultan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document