HIGHLIGHTS

Punjab and Haryana High Court directed State to take actions to eradicate child marriage

A criminal writ petition was filed by petitioners, who are yet to attain the marriageable age, seeking issuance of direction to the State to protect them from their estranged family so that they can continue to reside in live-in-relationship peacefully.

FACTS OF THE CASE-

The boy named Daya Ram, aged 20 years (petitioner No.1) and a girl named Reenu, aged 14 years (petitioner No.2) after being in contact with each other for last one year fell in love. The parents of the minor girl, Reenu were opposed to this relationship as were arranging her marriage with some another boy. However, the girl wanted to continue her life with her lover. Failing to convince her parents she left her home on 1^st June and both the petitioners decided to reside together in live-in – relationship until they attain the marriageable age. Subsequently they were receiving continuous threat from girl’s parents. As an escape they pleaded to superintendent of police, Sirsa to protect them from the girl’s parents.  But since there was no response from the part of official respondents, the petitioners knocked the door of the court for the issuance of necessary directions.

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT-

The lawyer on the behalf of the petitioners submitted before the court that there was no physical intimacy between the petitioners till date. He also argued that the petitioners are mature enough to distinguish between good and bad and was merely waiting to attain the statutory marriageable age. The counsel relied upon the series of recent prior judgments passed by this court in the similar case giving significance to the Article 21 of the Constitution. (Preeti and another vs. State of Haryana and others; Soniya and another vs. State of Haryana and others; Seema Kaur and another vs. State of Punjab and others etc.)

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT-

Opposing the petitioner’s argument, the learned State counsel, Sukhdeep Parmar questioned the maintainability of the case as well as stated that the petitioner approached this court without appropriate cause of action. Therefore, he pleaded for the dismissal of the petition.

The counsel accused the petitioner No.2 for kidnapping under sections 363, 366-A, 379 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code as he took away the girl who was minor from the lawful custody of her guardian.

Misuse of freedom in recent scenario-

In today’s scenario youngsters often in the disguise of using their freedom indulge in inappropriate activities like leaving the company of their parents etc.  and are inclined towards finding the person of their own choice in the very tender age. Eventually they plan to run away for small destination marriage or live together in live-in-relationship. Further in order to get legal support file petitions for protection by presenting danger to their life and liberty against the disapproving parents causing over burden in the functioning of the court. Most of these petitions are based upon fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

In the landmark case of Independent Thought v. Union of India and  another,(2017) the adverse effects of child marriage were analyzed in depth and observed that child marriage and intercourse at the early age not only effect the physical and mental health of a girl child but also adversely affect her nutrition, education, employability and general well-being. Therefore, for the welfare of the girl child as well as society, child marriage should not be permitted even if it is approved by tradition and custom. The fundamental right of article 21 also encompasses the right of the girl child to live with dignity. There must be harmonization with the provisions of various statues (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012) and IPC.

Further the reference was also made to the Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma judgment where the Supreme Court had discussed the nature of live-in-relationship.

VERDICT OF THE COURT-

After analyzing the facts and the circumstances of the case in depth and reviewing landmark judgment of the Supreme Court, the bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj observed that-

• Partner must fulfill certain conditions for residing in live-in-relationship. Just living together for couple of days doesn’t fulfill the pre-requisite of live-in-relationship.
• The representation of petitioner no. 1 as next friend of minor girl was not accepted as he was already accused on May 23, 2021 for kidnapping the minor daughter of respondent No. 5
• In the petition Entire blame was put upon the parents of minor girl who compelled her for taking such steps but it can’t be said that he acted for the welfare of the minor girl.
• No relevant information was given regarding the background of friendship, manner of threat etc.
• The petitioner No. 1 after running away with the minor girl did not try to contact the parents of the girl even once and sort out the differences which prove that the petition was filed in hurry.

The judgments referred by the counsel for petitioner were rejected as it did not match with the present case. Henceforth, the writ petition was dismissed.

Additionally, the court gave the responsibility to Senior Superintendent of Police, Sirsa to depute a responsible police officer to ensure that the custody of the minor girl is restored to her parents after coordinating with the State of Rajasthan police.

In view of increasing number of child marriages despite the various penal provisions like Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, the court referred to the Independent Thought’s case where the Supreme Court had recommended the Government of India and the State Governments to follow the decision of the State of Karnataka, which had declared child marriage as void ab initio through an amendment of March 20, 2017. The court through this case directed State of f Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh to implement the suggestions given above as early as possible and eradicate the menace of child marriage.

Case- Daya Ram & another v. State of Haryana & others