Karnataka HC Rejects Quashing of Child Marriage Proceedings Despite Happy Couple, Upholds Ss.9,10,11 PCMA - 2026-03-18

Karnataka HC Draws a Line: No Quashing Child Marriage Cases, Even for 'Happy Endings' In a resounding affirmation of child protection laws, the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru has rejected a plea by five accused to quash proceedings under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (PCMA). Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna on March 10, 2026, the ruling in Criminal Petition No. 1605 of 2026 underscores that marital bliss today cannot erase the illegality of yesterday's child marriage. The petitioners—Manjunatha N. (the groom), his parents Narayanawamy and Gayathramma, and the bride's parents Manjunatha B.S. and Manjula—faced charges in CC No. 4782/2022 stemming from Crime No. 61/2021 registered at Channarayapatna Police Station. A Marriage Born of Pandemic Panic The saga unfolded on August 30, 2021, at Sri Thabbalingeswara Temple in Bullahalli Village, Devanahalli Taluk. A 16-year-old girl, daughter of petitioners 4 and 5, was married to the 27-year-old first petitioner. The complaint, lodged suo motu by the Child Development Project Officer, Devanahalli Taluk on August 9, 2021—days before the ceremony—flagged the impending union. Investigation confirmed the girl's age (born 07/09/2005), leading to a charge sheet under Sections 9 (male adult marrying a child), 10 (solemnizing a child marriage), and 11 (promoting or permitting it). Now 20, the girl lives happily with her husband, their marriage registered post-18. Yet, proceedings advanced to pre-charge hearing when the petitioners invoked Section 528 BNSS (equivalent to Section 482 CrPC) for quashing. Defenses of Ignorance and Harmony vs. Ironclad Law Petitioners' counsel Sri Sadakath U. argued innocence rooted in COVID-19 fears: families, fearing pandemic deaths, wed the 16-year-old to the 27-year-old amid global crisis, ignorant of consequences. No overt acts marred the union; the couple thrives, marriage legalized later. Trial, they claimed, would end in acquittal—why waste judicial time? The State, via Additional SPP Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, countered sharply: Admitted facts seal culpability. A minor cannot consent; parents' role is non-negotiable. At pre-charge stage, quashing under BNSS is unwarranted. Dissecting the Statutory Fortress: PCMA's Unyielding Provisions Justice Nagaprasanna dissected Sections 9, 10, and 11 as a "statutory bulwark" against child marriages. Section 9 targets the adult male groom; Section 10 ensnares performers, abettors like priests or relatives; Section 11 casts a wide net over parents, guardians, or enablers, with a rebuttable presumption of negligence under sub-section (2)—no woman faces jail. Drawing from Supreme Court's Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine 2922), the bench highlighted PCMA's mandate for imprisonment and fine under Sections 10-11, expansive to temples or halls facilitating rites. Kerala HC's Moidutty Musliyar v. Sub-Inspector (2024 SCC OnLine Ker 4188) echoed: Ignorance excuses nothing; child marriage robs education, health, and autonomy. The court dismissed "happy couple" pleas: Liability crystallizes at solemnization, not diluted by later harmony. "Ignorance of law is no excuse," it declared, noting all male accused were adults, employed. Stark Warnings from the Bench "Child marriage is not a private family engagement beyond scrutiny, but a social wrong, demanding accountability at every level of participation." "What is presented as a familial consent, is in truth a surrender of childhood." "A girl married before 18 does not merely enter matrimony, she exits opportunity." Observing a "disturbing pattern" in POCSO and PCMA cases, the judge lamented parents trading daughters' futures for "social propriety." No Mercy, Broader Mandate: Proceed to Trial, Eradicate the Practice The petition was dismissed: "Finding no merit... stands rejected." Proceedings continue unabated. Beyond the case, the court issued directives: Child Development Officers must ensure venues like temples and marriage halls display warnings on PCMA penalties. Media and NGOs must amplify awareness. As news reports note, this addresses recurring violations where families solemnize underage unions unchecked. This ruling fortifies PCMA enforcement, signaling courts won't indulge post-facto justifications. Future cases may see stricter scrutiny of enablers, from priests to venue owners, prioritizing child rights over custom. Childhood, the court insists, must not be bartered away.