ARUN KUMAR TYAGI
Ravneet Kaur – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key legal points:
Legal Age and Minors: A girl below 18 years is considered a minor under Indian law, specifically under the Majority Act and Guardianship Acts. Such minors are deemed incapable of entering into valid marriage, giving lawful consent for marriage or sexual activity, and managing property or legal affairs independently (!) (!) (!) .
Marriage Laws for Minors: Marriages involving minors below 18 years are considered voidable, not void, and remain valid until annulled by a court. The law prohibits marriage below the age of 18, and any marriage performed in violation is punishable. Such marriages are not legally enforceable for consummation or custody rights until the minor attains majority (!) (!) .
Child Marriage Prohibition: Child marriage is criminalized under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. It is punishable for those who solemnize or promote such marriages, and the marriage of a girl below 18 is considered a crime, with specific provisions for annulment and penalties (!) (!) .
Consent and Validity of Marriage: The consent of a minor girl below 18 is not legally recognized for marriage purposes. Even if a minor girl expresses her desire to marry or live with a person, such marriage cannot be legally enforced or consummated, and her consent is deemed immaterial if she was enticed or taken away unlawfully (!) (!) .
Live-in Relationships: A minor girl above 15 years who has not attained the age of 18 cannot reside in a live-in-relationship in the nature of marriage with a person of her choice. Such relationships are not recognized legally, and the rights to live together or have sexual relations are limited by law and the child's welfare considerations (!) (!) .
Custody and Welfare of Minors: The welfare of the minor girl is paramount. Custody should be decided based on her best interests, considering her age, maturity, and expressed wishes. Custody cannot be granted to a person who is not her lawful guardian unless she expresses a clear and competent choice, and even then, she may be placed in protective custody or a child care institution (!) (!) .
Protection of Minors in Child Marriage Cases: Minors in child marriages are considered children in need of care and protection. They cannot be kept in juvenile detention homes meant for law-violating juveniles. Instead, they should be placed in appropriate child care institutions or with guardians, respecting their wishes and welfare (!) (!) .
Legal Rights and Protections: The law emphasizes the protection of the life, liberty, and development rights of minors. It prohibits any sexual activity or marriage involving minors and ensures their protection from exploitation, trafficking, and abuse (!) (!) (!) .
Legal Enforcement and Responsibilities: Authorities, including police and judicial officers, are mandated to take action against violations of child marriage laws, including registration of FIRs and prosecution. The law also guides the procedures for marriage registration, protection, and custody of minors (!) (!) .
Fundamental Rights: The right to life and liberty does not extend to protecting minors for residing in live-in relationships or marriages in contravention of law. The welfare and safety of minors take precedence, and their protection involves legal safeguards, including placement in child care institutions and protective custody (!) (!) .
Overall Approach: The legal framework prioritizes the prohibition of child marriage, the protection of minors’ rights, and their welfare. It recognizes that marriage below 18 years is not legally enforceable and that minors require special care, protection, and rehabilitation under the juvenile justice and child welfare laws (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you require further clarification or assistance with any specific aspect.
JUDGMENT
Arun Kumar Tyagi, J. - The case has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing.
1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of directions to respondents No.2 and 3 to protect their life and liberty from danger at the hands of respondents No. 4 to 10.
2. Briefly stated, the petition has been filed on the averments that the petitioner No.l is aged about 15.5 years and her date of birth is 02.09.2005. Petitioner No.2, being aged about 19 years, is major. The petitioners were known to each other for the last one year and have developed liking for each other and wanted to perform marriage but could not do so due to petitioner No.l not being of marriageable age as per Hindu Law. The petitioners started residing together in live-in-relationship. Respondents No. 4 to 10, who are parents and paternal uncles of petitioner No.l, have threatened them with dire consequences if they stay together and are bent upon to involve petitioner No.2 in some false case. Respondents No. 4 to 10 have also threatened to eliminate the petitioners if they married or stayed together against their wishes. The petitioners made
Bholu Khan vs. State of NCT of Delhi (Delhi) (D.B.) : 2013(1) RCR(Cri) 980
D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaimmal : 2010 (4) RCR(Civ) 827
Independent Thought Vs Union of India and another : 2017(4) RCR(Cri) 595
Indra Sarma vs. V.KV. Sarma : (2013) 15 SCC 755
Indra Sarma vs. V.KV. Sarma : (2013) 15 SCC 755
Indra Sarma vs. V.KV. Sarma : (2013) 15 SCC 755
Kammu vs. State of Haryana : 2010 (4) RCR(Civ) 716
Lajja Devi and others vs. State and others (Delhi High Court) : 2012(4) RCR(Civ) 821
Lota Singh vs. State of U.P. and another : (2006) 5 SCC 475
Moniram Hazarika vs. State of Assam : 2004 (5) SCC 120
Neelam Rani and another vs. State of Haryana and others : 2011 (1) RCR(Civ) 636
Pardeep Kumar Singh vs. State of Haryana : 2008(3) RCR(Cri) 376
Rosy Jacob vs. Jacob Chakramakkal
S. Varadarajan vs. State of Madras : AIR 1965 SC 942
Satish Kumar Jayanti Lai Dabgar vs. State of Gujarat
Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan KM. And others : 2018 (16) SCC 368
Thakorlal D Vadgama vs. State of Gujarat
Yunus Khan vs. State of Haryana (P&H) : 2014(3) RCR(Cri) 518
Kumar vs. Jahgirdar vs. Chetana K Ramatheertha
Amninder Kaur and Another vs. State of Punjab and Others : 2010(1) RCR(Cri) 261
Anversinh @ Kiransinh Fatesinh Zala vs. State of Gurugram : 2021 (1) RCR(Cri) 555
Balwinder Singh @ Binder vs. State of Punjab (P&H) : 2008(3) RCR(Cri) 1
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.