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

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2999

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. H.S. Randhawa, Advocate As Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondent: Mr. M.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Petitioners sought protection of life and liberty from familial and societal pressures against their intended marriage, revealing the minor girl's age and context. (Paras 1-2, 10-12)

(B) Child Protection - The court emphasized that a girl child at risk of marriage before age limits specified by law is a "Child in need of care and protection." The court found the marriage was solemnized despite the girl's minority, contravening statutory protections. (Paras 9, 14)

(C) Jurisdiction - The court held that it can exercise parens patriae jurisdiction to ensure the best interest of minors. In following interim orders, the minors' guardians are bound to ensure the girl completes her education and is not married before reaching majority. (Paras 15-16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, a young couple, faced threats concerning their relationship, prompting the legal action to affirm their rights to pursue marriage. The respondents included family members opposing the marriage and authorities tasked with child protection.

Findings of Court:
The court directed that conditions must be established to protect, educate, and ensure the welfare of the minor girl until she reaches adulthood.

Issues: The court addressed the legality of the marriage under the Juvenile Justice Act and the rights of minors against familial pressures.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed the necessity to protect minors from coerced marriages under the Juvenile Justice Act and provided that any marriage performed in contravention of this Act is illegal.

Result: The petition is disposed of with directions for compliance with statutory provisions.

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

            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 Back to top