IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
N.S. SHEKHAWAT, J.
Rachpal Singh & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CRWP NO. 11616 of 2022
Decided On : 17-04-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. protection of minors' rights in marriage (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. child welfare committee's role in preventing minor marriages (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. supreme court's perspective on child welfare rights (Para 6 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. legal duties of the court regarding child welfare (Para 9 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. order for ongoing child protection and education (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT
N.S. Shekhawat, J.
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Rachpal Singh, aged 20 years (petitioner No.1), his parents as well as by Ranbir Kaur (petitioner No.6), aged 14 years and her parents, for protection of their lives and liberty and a further prayer has been made to direct the respondents No.4 to 6 not to interfere in their peaceful lives.
2. It was averred in the petition that Rachpal Singh, petitioner No.1 and Ranbir Kaur (minor), petitioner No.6 were engaged with each other and it was decided that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.6 shall be performed, on attaining the age of majority by petitioner No.6. It was stated that respondent No.4 i.e. the grand-father of petitioner No.1, respondent No.5, who is owner of a Youtube News Channel and respondent No.6 i.e. Chairperson of Child Protection Unit, Tarn Taran (Punjab) were against the said relationship. It was also stated that the present petitioners, while apprehending danger to their lives and liberty, even submitted a representation dated 06.12.2022 (Annexure P-7) to the local police, but no action was taken on the same under the local influence of respondents No.4 to 6 and still threats were being extended to them.
3. Since the petitioners wanted to perform the marriage of Ranbir Kaur, petitioner No.6, who was admittedly aged about 14 years and 3 months, this Court had taken very serious view of the matter and directed the Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Patti, District Tarn Taran to ensure the presence of mother of Ranbir Kaur i.e. petitioner No.5 as well as the Chairperson of Child Protection Unit, Tarn Taran, respondent No.6 before this Court.
4. During the course of proceedings, Chairperson, Child Welfare Committee, Tarn Taran (Respondent No.6) appeared before this Court and submitted her reply by way of her affidavit. It was contended by respondent No.6 that on 14.11.2022, an information was received by the Child Helpline No.1098 regarding the performing of child marriage of a girl, namely, Ranbir Kaur, aged about 15 years (Petitioner No.6) with Rachpal Singh (petitioner No.1) at Baba Vir Singh Gurdwara Patti Morh, District Tarn Taran. The District Child Welfare Protection Officer, Tarn Taran along with SHO and CDPO enquired the matter and they found that no marriage was performed at the disclosed place. Later on, they went to the house of Ranbir Kaur (Petitioner No.6), where they found that the tents had been erected there and meals for the guests was also there. The photographs were clicked, however, petitioner No.6 i.e. the minor girl and Rachpal Singh (Petitioner No.1) were not produced before the team by the family members. The District Child Protection Officer, directed the SHO, Police Station Sabhra to produce the minor girl and the boy and their family members before them on 15.11.2022.
5. On 15.11.2022, the Station House Officer, Police Station Sabhra, produced petitioner No.1, 2, 5 and 6 before the Child Welfare Committee, Tarn Taran and their statements were recorded and in their statements, they had admitted the fact that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.6 (minor) was solemnized on 14.11.2022. The proceedings were held by the Child Welfare Committee and the parties were made to understand that the marriage of minor was illegal as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Juvenile Act) and specific instructions were issued to petitioner No.5 (mother of minor girl) that minor girl i.e. petitioner No.6 shou
Independent Thought v. Union of India, 2017 (4) RCR(Cri) 595
The fundamental right to seek protection of life and liberty extends to minors, and the court has a duty to ensure their welfare and safety.
The paramount consideration of the welfare of the minor and the applicability of the statutory framework provided by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 and the Protection....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's duty to ensure the protection and welfare of minors in accordance with the statutory framework under the Juvenile Justice Act, while al....
Proper representation of minors and evidence of threat are essential in petitions seeking protection for live-in-relationships involving minors. Additionally, the court highlighted the issue of child....
The court affirmed that the state must protect the life and liberty of citizens, regardless of their age, and directed appropriate action in case of threats.
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.