To eradicate menace, consider declaring child marriage void: High Court

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, June 12

In a judgment liable to prevent bondages of childhood from turning into barred-by-law alliances, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked the States of Punjab and Haryana, along with the Union Territory of Chandigarh, to consider declaring child marriage “void ab initio” or invalid from the outset.

Justice Manoj Bajaj reminded the states to consider “this important issue” to eradicate “menace of child marriage”, while directing the forwarding of the judgment to the Chief Secretaries of Punjab and Haryana, along with UT Adviser.

Taking up a petition by the minors for protection of life and liberty from their family opposing their live-in-relationship, Justice Bajaj asserted penal provisions were in place under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. But child marriages were taking place in violation of the provisions of the Act.

“The SC in “Independent Thought’s case” has already given a suggestion to the Centre and the state government to follow the decision of the State of Karnataka, which declared child marriage void ab initio through an amendment…. This suggestion of the SC was given in 2017. But the same is yet to attract the attention of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh,” Justice Bajaj asserted.

He also made it clear that a previous judgment on the protection issue did not take into consideration the petition’s maintainability. The assertion came after the petitioners’ counsel argued that there was no physical intimacy between the petitioners till date as they were waiting to attain the statutory marriageable age. As such, the relatives had no right to interfere in their life. In support of his arguments, the counsel placed reliance upon HC decisions.

Justice Bajaj asserted the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the petitioners were not applicable to the present case. Despite noticing that the girl was a minor in the judgments, the maintainability of the petitions, without proper representation of the minor girl, was not examined. Also, the Supreme Court’s latest order dated June 4 was not applicable to the present case.

Justice Bajaj added the girl, only 14 years and eight months old, was a minor. The boy, just over 20, was representing her, claiming himself to be the next friend of the minor. The writ petition was not signed by any of the petitioners. In support of the pleadings, only the boy’s affidavit was filed. The entire blame was put on the girl’s natural guardians. He was already an accused in case of kidnapping the minor.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.