Liability for prosecution under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and the need for maintaining proper registers of marriages by religious officials.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. (Oral). - On 08.09.2020, the following order was passed by this Court:-

"Prayer in this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of directions to officials respondents to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners as petitioner No. 1 has performed marriage with petitioner No. 2 against the wishes of her parents and other family members and the petitioners are apprehending threat to their life and liberty at their instance.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of Court, Mr. Harbir Sandhu, DAG, Punjab, who is also appearing through video conferencing, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-State.

List again on 21.09.2020.

In the meantime, the petitioners and respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana/Duty Magistrate on 15.09.2020, who will record the statement of the parties and submit a report about the age of petitioner No. 2 Poonam as it is her own declaration in the petition that as per her matriculation certificate, her date of birth is 05.07.2003, according to which, as on date, her age is 17 years, 02 months and 03 days. The SHO, Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana will ensure the presence of petitioners and respondent Nos. 4 to 6 before the CJM/Duty Magistrate on the date fixed.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana is also directed to record the statement of Pandit Sonu Sharma, Purohit of Tridev Sanatan Dharm Prachar Samiti (Regd.), Booth No. 249, MDC, Sector 4, Panchkula on the date so fixed, who have performed the marriage in question, as to how he has performed the marriage without taking any proof regarding age of petitioner No. 2 to be above 18 years.

The SHO, Police Station MDC, Sector 4, Panchkula is also directed to ensure the presence of Pandit Sonu Sharma before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana on 15.09.2020. The SHO will depute two police officials and Pandit Sonu Sharma will pay an amount ofRs. 3,000/- to the SHO towards the cost transportation.

Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana, who is also appearing through video conferencing, is directed to communicate this order to SHO, Police Station, MDC, Sector 4, Panchkula to ensure the presence Pandit Sonu Sharma before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana on 15.09.2020.

Report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana be sent to this Court on or before the next date of hearing."

2. In compliance thereof, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, has submitted a report dated 16.09.2020. As per the report, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana has recorded the statement of petitioner No.l - Sukhwinder Singh, petitioner No.2 - Poonam, respondents No.4 and 5 - Sohan Singh and Chandar Kalan Devi (parents of petitioner No.2) and respondent No.6 - Kulbir Singh Negi (the maternal uncle of petitioner No.2 - Poonam).

3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana has also recorded the statement of Pandit Sonu Sharma @ Sonu Kaushik, who performed the marriage of the petitioners. The operative part of the report, on the basis of the statement, of all the concerned, reads as under:-

"Therefore, in view of the reasons detailed supra, undersigned submits the report as under:-

i. That the date of birth of petitioner No.2 Poonam is 05.07.2003 which shows that she was less than 18 years of age at the time of marriage.

ii. That Pandit Sonu Sharma, Purohit of Tridev Sanatan Dharam Prachar Samiti (Regd), has performed the marriage of petitioner No.2 Poonam with petitioner No.l Sukhwinder Singh without taking valid documentary proof of her age and merely on the basis of duly sworn affidavits of petitioner No.2 Poonam."

4. In view of the statements of respondents No.4 to 6, the date of birth of petitioner No.2 - Poonam is 05.07.2003 and on the date of the alleged marriage dated 02.09.2020, her age was 17 years, 02 months and 10 days.

5. Counsel appearing for respondents No.4 to 6 has placed on record the photocopy of the civil suit dated 08.07.