SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(P&H) 1492

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arun Kumar Tyagi, J.
Ravneet Kaur & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. - Respondents
CRWP-5929-2021
Decided On : 31-08-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. K.K. Saini, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. P.S. Walia, Asstt. A.G., Punjab, Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl.A.G. Haryana, Mr. Parampreet Singh Paul, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate and Ms. Gursharan Kaur Mann, Senior Advocate, for the Respondent.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226/227 - Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 - Section 9 - Custody rights of minor girls - The court examined the legal status of child marriages and the implications on custody, emphasizing that a minor girl cannot reside with a partner of her choice in a live-in relationship or be removed from lawful guardianship. The court reaffirmed the need for protective measures for minors, particularly in cases involving threats from guardians against the minor's wishes. (Paras 3, 14, 65, 71, 84)

(B) Rights and protections under the law - The court highlighted the obligations of the State to protect minor girls and provide care, especially those who may face imminent danger due to personal relationships. It further asserted that a marriage with a minor girl is voidable and cannot be legally enforceable, dismissing the notion of consent in such circumstances. (Paras 76, 84)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought protection from threats posed by the parents of the minor girl, who faced legal repercussions for wanting to be in a live-in relationship despite not being of legal marriageable age as defined by Hindu law. The court noted the minors' living situation and their desire to protect their life and liberty. (Paras 1, 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the custody of the minor girl should not be given to the boy; instead, she should be placed in a child care institution until she reached majority, where her education and vocational training would be ensured. (Paras 85, 86)

Issues: The main issues included the rights of minors in a live-in relationship, consent-related questions regarding marriage, and the legal capacity of minors in such contexts. (Paras 14, 71)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that while minors are allowed to marry under certain socio-cultural circumstances, the law protects them by not enforcing such marriages until they reach the age of majority, emphasizing the incapacity of minors to consent in legal matters regarding marriage and relationship. (Paras 12, 14, 76)

Result: The petition was partly allowed; protective measures were put in place for the minor, and her welfare was prioritized. She was ordered to remain in a safe facility until she attained majority to protect her from any harm. (Paras 85, 90)

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key legal points:

  1. 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 (!) (!) (!) .

  2. 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 (!) (!) .

  3. 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 (!) (!) .

  4. 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 (!) (!) .

  5. 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 (!) (!) .

  6. 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 (!) (!) .

  7. 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 (!) (!) .

  8. 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 (!) (!) (!) .

  9. 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 (!) (!) .

  10. 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 (!) (!) .

  11. 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.


Table of Content
1. protection of minor's life and liberty. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court observations on child custody and protection. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 11)
3. arguments presented regarding child marriage and relationships. (Para 8 , 9)
4. legal age definitions and its implications. (Para 14 , 15 , 17 , 18)
5. impact of child marriage as per different acts. (Para 25 , 27 , 28 , 31)
6. legal enforceability of minor’s consent in marriage. (Para 60 , 63 , 64)
7. conclusions drawn regarding the minor’s protection and welfare. (Para 85 , 86)

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 representation dated 23.06.2021 to respondent No.2 but no action has been taken on the same.

3. Vide order date 30.06.2021, while issuing notice of motion, this Court observed that the case involves questions as to whether a minor girl who has not attained marriageable age of 18 years is entitled to reside with a person of her choice in live-in-relationship in the nature of marriage, whether such a minor girl can give consent to her removal from lawful guardianship and also to live-in-relationship in the nature of marriage with consummation thereof by such person, whether such person, not being husband, can purport to act as guardian of the minor girl and claim her custody without seeking order from Guardian Judge/Family Court under the Guardian and Wards Act 1890 or the Hindu Minority and Guardianship and Minority Act, 1956 as the case may be and whether the fundamental right to protection of life and liberty extends to protection of the minor girl for residing with such person in live-in-relationship in nature of marriage and that these questions require thread bare adjudication not only with reference to judgments referred by learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel but also with reference to all relevant judicial precedents in this regard. Since similar cases are also coming from the State of Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh, State of Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh were impleaded as respondents No. 11 and 12 to the petition and States of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh were directed to file reply/response and directions were also issued that in case of apprehension of physical harm, petitioner No.l may go to Protection Home, Amritsar, if so desired, and in such an eventuality respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Amritsar shall provide requisite protection to petitioner No.l during her stay in the Protection Home, Amritsar. All the expenses for stay of petitioner No.l in Protection Home, Amritsar shall be borne by the State of Punjab.

4. Vide order dated 07.07.2021 passed by this Court Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar (Rural) and Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur were impleaded as respondents No. 13 and 14 and respondents No.2, 13 and 14 were directed to take over custody of petitioner No.l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top