The court clarified the validity of a previous marriage entered into when one party was a minor under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, emphasizing the distinction between voidable and void-ab-initio marriages.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral) - Petitioner No.1 is disclosed in the petition to be aged 19 years. She contracted marriage with co-petitioner No.2-Vijay, in the year 2021, and, the afore is disclosed on affidavit, to be at the relevant time, aged about 24 years.

2. Prima facie hence both the petitioners could enter into a valid contract of marriage. However, the petitioners averred in the petition that since co-respondent Nos. 4 to 8 were opposing, the love marriage entered amongst them. Therefore, they sought the making of a Mandamus against co-respondent Nos.2 and 3, for the latters providing adequate security to them, to ward off the purported threats as meted to the life of the petitioners, and, as purportedly emanate from the afore co-respondents Nos.4 to 8.

3. When the petition had come up on 28.09.2021, this Court after adjourning the matter to 28.10.2021, had made interim directions upon co- respondent No.2, to decide the petitioners' representation, as, carried in Annexure P-5, and, also to take necessary action in accordance with law against the errants concerned.

4. In pursuance to the aforemade directions, the respondent concerned, had caused the appearance, before him, of the afore co-respondents, and, had also recorded their respective statements. A perusal of statements of co- respondent Nos. 4 to 8, as became recorded by the respondent concerned, more especially of the father of co-petitioner No.1, one Krishan Kumar, and, of one Lali Devi, the mother of the co-petitioner No.1, discloses that they are not meteing any threats to either of the co-petitioners, and, also both state, that they have no intention to mete any threats in future to the co-petitioners. In addition, they have also made narrations in their respectively recorded statements, that co- petitioner No.1, prior to hers solemnizing marriage with co-petitioner No.2, was already married with one Sumit son of Ramesh, resident of Kateshra, District Rohtak, and, that in respect of the co-petitioner No.1, eloping with co-petitioner No.2 they have lodged FIR No.155 dated 17.09.2021, hence under Section 346 of the IPC. Furthermore, it is also narrated therein, that after the lodging of the afore FIR, the above named parents of co-petitioner No.1, became aware of the factum, of the petitioners' solemnizing marriage in a temple, and, in respect thereof, theirs filing a civil suit in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

5. However, it is furthermore stated at the bar by the learned counsels appearing for the litigants concerned, that no civil suit has been instituted, by the parents of co-petitioner No.1 before this Court. Nonetheless, it has been fairly stated before this Court by the learned counsels appearing for the contesting litigants, that an application bearing No.CRM-W-1241-2021, as, cast under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., has been instituted before this Court, for causing initiation of proceedings of perjury against the petitioners, and, as arise from the petitioners swearing a false affidavit before this Court, that co-respondent No.1 had not prior to hers entering into a contract of marriage with co-petitioner No.2, rather not entered into any marriage with any other person.

6. A reply to the afore application, was furnished by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and, it is candidly clear from a reading of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the apposite reply, that co-petitioner No.1, had earlier to hers solemnizing marriage with co-petitioner No.2, hence been compelled to enter into a contract of marriage, on 23.11.2016, with one Sumit. It is furthermore clear, from a reading paragraphs 2 and 3 thereof, that, at the afore stage co- petitioner No.1, was a minor, inasmuch as she was 14 years old, and, that she could not give a valid consent for hers entering, into a marriage earlier to the one which was entered into amongst the co-petitioners.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues, and, refers to the judgment of the Hon