IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Iqbal and Another - Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others - Respondents
CRWP-11123 of 2023, CRWP-11190-2023
Decided on : 13-12-2023
Muslim Marriage - Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 - Sections 2, 3, 12 - The court discussed the legal provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and their interpretation in the context of Muslim Personal Law. It highlighted the age of majority, competence to marry, and the rights of the guardians under the Act and Muslim Personal Law.
Fact of the Case:
Shameem and Salma, both Muslims, married against their family's wishes. Their families filed petitions seeking protection and custody of Salma. The court had to decide whether the marriage was valid and whether Salma's custody should be handed over to her parents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the marriage of Shameem and Salma was prima facie valid under Muslim Personal Law. As Salma was above the age of puberty and Shameem was of marriageable age, the custody of Salma was awarded to Shameem. The parents' wishes regarding Salma's custody were deemed inconsequential.
Issues: Validity of the marriage, custody of Salma, and the application of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 in the context of Muslim Personal Law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the marriage of Shameem and Salma was valid under Muslim Personal Law, and Salma's custody was awarded to Shameem based on her age and competence to marry. The court also emphasized the protection of fundamental rights as per the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: CRWP-11190-2023 was allowed, directing the custody of Salma to be handed over to Shameem and providing necessary protection to the petitioners. CRWP-11123-2023 was dismissed.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The marriage of the Muslim girl, Salma, was performed according to Muslim Rites and Customs, and her age at the time of marriage was more than 15 years, specifically over 16 years and 6 months (!) (!) .
The marriage is considered prima facie valid under Muslim Personal Law, which recognizes that a Muslim girl who has attained puberty is competent to marry (!) (!) (!) .
The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 defines a 'child' as a person below 18 years of age for females and below 21 for males, and a 'minor' as a person deemed not to have attained majority under the Majority Act, 1875 (!) (!) (!) .
The law states that a marriage of a girl who has attained puberty (above 15 years) is not necessarily void or voidable solely on the basis of age, provided the marriage conforms to personal laws and customs (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the age of majority for females, in the context of Muslim Personal Law, is linked with puberty, and such marriages are recognized as valid if performed according to religious rites (!) (!) .
The court highlighted that fundamental rights under the Constitution, particularly the right to life and liberty, must be protected, even in cases where the marriage is performed against family wishes (!) .
The court held that the marriage of Salma and Shameem is valid, and Salma’s custody should be handed over to Shameem, her husband, as she is above the age of puberty and of marriageable age under Muslim Personal Law (!) .
The parents' plea for custody of Salma was dismissed, as their wishes are deemed inconsequential given the legal recognition of the marriage and Salma’s age (!) (!) .
The police are instructed to continue their investigation into the allegations of kidnapping and related offences, but the court’s order does not impede lawful investigation (!) .
The court directed the authorities to provide protection to the petitioners in the case, considering the threat perception to their safety (!) .
The legal provisions and interpretations reaffirm that age of puberty and majority under personal law can differ from statutory age limits for minors, especially in the context of Muslim personal law (!) (!) .
The court reaffirmed that the fundamental rights of individuals to marry and to personal liberty are protected under the Constitution, even when marriages are performed against family opposition, provided they are valid under personal law (!) (!) .
These points summarize the court’s reasoning, findings, and directions based on the case details and applicable law.
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Shameem and Salma, the petitioners in CRWP-11190-2023 are Muslims by religion. Petitioner- Shameem is 23 years of age, whereas petitioner- Salma, with her date of birth being 03.05.2007, is more than 16 years 06 months of age. They wanted to perform marriage, to which their family members did not agree. They then entered into a matrimonial bondage in a Masjid at Zirakpur as per Muslim Rites and Ceremonies on 08.11.2023. Since marriage was performed against the wishes of the family members, they felt threat to their life and liberty and so, approached this Court by filing this petition i.e., CRWP-11190-2023 under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuing the writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the official respondents to protect their life and liberty at the hands of private respondent Nos.4 to 6, who are the father, brother and uncle of the girl Salma.
2. On the other hand, the parents of the girl Iqbal and Rashida filed separate petition bearing No. CRWP-11123-2023 praying this Court to issue a writ in the nature of habeas corpus and to direct the official respondent Nos.1 to 3 to produce their minor daughter Salma from the illegal custody of respondent No.4 Shameem (petitioner No.1 of CRWP-11123-2023). It was contended by them that their daughter was a minor, who had been abducted by respondent No.4- Shameem, regarding which FIR No.227 dated 07.11.2023 had been registered at Police Station Partap Nagar (Khizrabad), District Yamuna Nagar, for commission of offences under Sections 363 & 366-A of the IPC. It was further contended that despite lapse of more than a week from the date of registration of the FIR, the investigating agency had failed to trace the whereabouts of the detenue nor had taken any action against respondent No.4. Prayer was accordingly made to issue the writ of habeas corpus to produce Salma from the illegal custody of respondent No.4 and to hand over her custody to the petitioners.
3. Respondent No.4 in CRWP-11123-2023 i.e. Shameem opposed the petition and filed reply, wherein he referred to Section 2 of the Majority Act besides Section 2 of The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and contended that a Muslim girl after attaining the age of puberty, cannot be treated as minor under The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and as respondent No.4-Shameem had contracted Nikaah with the daughter of the petitioners Salma i.e., alleged detenue, so he (respondent N:4 Shameem) was the natural guardian of his wife and therefore, petitioner deserves to be dismissed. He also referred about CRWP-11190-2023 filed by him along with his wife Salma for seeking protection to their life and liberty.
4. Counsels for all the sides have been heard and their contentions considered. Paper book also perused.
5. The sole question, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is that whether Shameem and Salma, the petitioners in CRWP-11190-2023 deserve to be given necessary protection qua their life and liberty; and further, whether the custody of petitioner Salma should be handed over to her parents Iqbal and Rashida i.e., petitioners of CRWP-11123-2023.
6. It is an undisputed fact that the Petitioner- Shameem is 23 years of age, whereas petitioner- Salma, with her date of birth being 03.05.2007, is more than 16 years 06 months of age. Since Nikaah (marriage) was performed by them on 08.11.2023, it means that on that date, Salma was above 15 years of age. As already observed that both the petitioners belong to Muslim religion and have performed marriage as per Muslim Rites and Customs.
7. Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 was enacted to provide for the prohibition of solemnisation of child marriages. Section 2 of this Act provides definitions of some of the relevant and important terms, as under:
(b) "child marriage" means a marriage to which either
Kammu v. State of Haryana 2010(4) RCR(Civ) 716
Mohd. Samim v. State of Haryana 2019 (1) RCR(Cri) 685
The marriage of a Muslim girl is governed by Muslim Personal Law, and the competence to marry is determined based on the age of puberty. The court emphasized the protection of fundamental rights as p....
The marriage of the petitioners is valid under Muslim Personal Law, and parental objections do not negate their rights to protection and custody.
The fundamental rights of individuals, including protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, prevail regardless of familial objections to marriage.
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 contra....
The court emphasized the protection of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, particularly in the context of marriage and the apprehension of danger to life and liberty.
Marriage with party below marriageable age voidable not void; Article 21 protection for life/liberty of majors paramount over validity disputes, mandating state safeguards against family harassment.
The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 applies universally to all citizens of India, overriding personal laws, and establishes that child marriages are voidable at the option of the minor, reinf....
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.