Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sudhir Mittal, J.
Sahib - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRWP-4944-2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 31-05-2021
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 - Minor Marriage - Court protects life and liberty of married minor girl
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed for protection of life and liberty of two petitioners who allegedly got married against the wishes of their parents. Petitioner No.2 is a 16-year-old minor and it is her second marriage, which is void under Muslim law.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the prohibition contained in Section 12 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and the void nature of a second marriage of a Muslim girl. Despite disagreement with previous judgments, the court deemed it necessary to protect the petitioners' life and liberty.
Issues: Protection of life and liberty of minor married against parents' wishes
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and the void nature of the second marriage of a Muslim girl, emphasizing the need to protect the petitioners' life and liberty.
Final Decision: The court directed respondent No.2 to take petitioner No.2 in custody and lodge her in the nearest Nari Niketan for counseling, ensuring no harm comes to the petitioners' life and liberty.
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed for protection of life and liberty as the petitioners have allegedly got married against the wishes of their respective parents. Petitioner No.2 is stated to be 16 years of age and thus, she is a minor. It is also noticed that this marriage (if it can be called so) is her second marriage. Being a minor, the prohibition contained in Section 12 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 would be attracted as also the fact that a second marriage of a Muslim girl is void.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon two Single Bench judgments of this Court in Mohd Samim vs. State of Haryana, CRWP No.532 of 2018, decided on 26.09.2018 as well as Jakar and another vs. State of Haryana and others, CRWP No.9956 of 2020 decided on 16.12.2020. The judgment in Jakar (supra) does not refer to the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and I am respectfully not in agreement with the judgment in Mohd Samim (supra). However, irrespective of any complaint, the petitioners life and liberty deserve to be protected.
3. Notice of motion.
4. Mr. Amit Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 and waives service.
5. Mr. S.K. Panwar, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of respondent No.5. He submits that respondent No.4 has already died.
6. It is thus, directed that the name of respondent No.4 be deleted from the memo of parties.
7. Respondent No.2 is directed to take petitioner No.2 in custody and lodge her in the Nari Niketan nearest to her residence. While in the Nari Niketan, she shall be put through counseling in the presence of petitioner No.1 and their respective parents/relatives and a report of the same be sent to this Court on or before the next date of hearing. Meanwhile, it shall be ensured that no harm comes to the life and liberty of the petitioners.
8. Adjourned to 23.07.2021.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
