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

2022 Supreme(P&H) 353

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harnaresh Singh Gill, J.
Farjaad & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CRWP-7254-2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 29-07-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Majlish Khan, Advocate for Ms. Geeta Rani, Advocate, for the Appellant; , for the Respondent

The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Muslim Personal Law, specifically Article 195, in determining the competence of a Muslim girl to enter into a marriage contract. Additionally, the judgment emphasized the fundamental rights of individuals under Article 21 of the Constitution, particularly the protection of life and personal liberty.

Headnote:

Marriage - Muslim Personal Law - Article 195 - Protection of Life and Liberty - [Article 195, Article 21]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, a minor and an adult, have married against the wishes of their family members and sought protection of their life and liberty from potential danger. The court noted the marriage certificate and a representation submitted to the Superintendent of Police.

Finding of the Court:

The court acknowledged the marriage of the petitioners and emphasized the need to address their apprehension of danger to their life and liberty. It highlighted the protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Issues: The main issue was to address the apprehension raised by the petitioners of danger to their life and liberty at the hands of private respondents and to provide them protection as per Article 21 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Muslim Personal Law and specifically cited Article 195, emphasizing that a Muslim girl of 17 years is competent to enter into a marriage contract. It also highlighted the fundamental rights of the petitioners under the Constitution, particularly the protection of life and personal liberty.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition with a direction to the Superintendent of Police to decide the representation moved by the petitioners and grant them protection if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived. The order clarified that it does not protect the petitioners from legal action for any violation of the law committed by them.

JUDGMENT

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J. (Oral). - This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondents No.4 to 15.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.2, though minor, and petitioner No.1, have married with each other against the wishes of respondents No.4 to 15 and have sought protection to their life and liberty. They apprehend danger at the hands of respondents No.4 to 15. The certificate evidencing their marriage is on record as Annexure P-1. The petitioners have submitted a representation dated 23.07.2022 (Annexure P-4) to respondent No.2-Superintendent of Police, District Faridabad, for redressal of their grievance.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that this is the first marriage of both the petitioners. He has relied upon the decisions by the Coordinate Benches in 'Kammu vs. State of Haryana & Ors.' 2010(4) RCR (Civil) 716; 'Yunus Khan vs. State of Haryana & Ors.' 2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 518, 'Mohd. Samim vs. State of Haryana & Ors.' 2019(1) RCR (Criminal) 685, and dated 25.01.2021 rendered in CRWP-733-2021, titled as 'Shoukat Hussain and another Vs. State of Punjab and others', to contend that in Muslim law puberty and majority are one and the same and that there is a presumption that a person attains majority at the age of 15 years. It is further contented that a Muslim boy or Muslim girl who has attained puberty is at liberty to marry any one he or she likes and the guardian has no right to interfere.

4. Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 3-State only, at this stage.

5. On the asking of this Court, Mr. Ashok Singh Chaudhary Addl. AG Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3- State only.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. This Court has taken note of the judgements cited on behalf of the petitioners and also the fact that the girl in the instant case i.e. petitioner No.2 is aged about 17 years. In the case of Yunus Khan(supra), it has been noticed that the marriage of a Muslim girl is governed by the personal law of the Muslims. Article 195 from the book 'Principles of Mohammedan Law by Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mulla' has also been reproduced in the said decision. The said Article reads as under:

      '195. Capacity for marriage - (1) Every Mahomedan of sound mind, who has attained puberty, may enter into a contract of marriage.

      (2) Lunatics and minors who have not attained puberty may be validly contracted in marriage by their respective guardians.

      (3) A marriage of a Mahomedan who is sound mind and has attained puberty, is void, if it is brought about without his consent.

      Explanation - Puberty is presumed, in the absence of evidence, on completion of the age of fifteen years.'

      8. A Coordinate Bench in Kammu's case (supra), has held in para No.20 that as per the text Book of Mohammedan Law by Aqil Ahmad, 'Puberty and majority' in the Muslim law, are one and the same.

      9. The presumption is that a person attains majority at the age of 15 years. It should be noted that marriage of a minor without the consent of the guardian is invalid unless it is ratified after the attainment of majority. A boy or girl who has attained puberty is at liberty to marry any one he or she likes and the guardian has no right to interfere if the match be equal.

      10. In view of the decisions cited above, the law is clear that the marriage of a Muslim girl is governed by the Muslim Personal Law. As per Article 195 from the book 'Principles of Mohammedan Law by Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mulla', petitioner No.2 being 17 years of age, is competent to enter into a contract of marriage with a person of her choice. Petitioner No.1 is stated to be about 23 years of age. Thus, petitioner No.2 is of marriageable age as envisaged by Muslim Personal Law. In any event, the issue in hand is not with regard to the validity of the

      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 telegram-icon
      whatsapp-icon Back to top