The States Must Be Reminded To Actively Seek To Eradicatethe Practice Of Child Marriage: The Punjab And Haryana HC

What is the issue

• The Punjab & Haryana High Court while hearing the protection plea of the petitioners, who are yet to attain the marriageable age, recently declined to provide them protection, and the writ petition was dismissed while noting that that the issue to eradicate child marriage menace needs to be considered by the State.
• The Bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj was hearing the plea of one Daya Ram born who is 20 years old and Reenu who is 14 years old, who claimed that they knew each other for the last one year and with the passage of time fell in love, but the parents of Reenu opposed their relationship.
• They submitted that the girl left her house and contacted the Boy and decided to reside together in a live-in-relationship till they attain the marriageable age.
• They apprehended that the parents of the Girl would not spare them as they received continuous threats, they sent a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Sirsa which failed to evoke any response from the official respondents, as to date no protection has been provided, therefore, the petitioners approached the court for issuance of necessary directions.

Observations of the Court

• At the outset, the Court stressed that the Girl Reenu is only 14 years and therefore is a minor.
• The court referred to the case of Independent Thought Versus Union of India and another, 2017 in which the Supreme Court had observed the practice of early marriage or child marriage even if it is sanctified by tradition and custom, it is still considered as an undesirable practice today with increasing awareness and knowledge of its detrimental effects and the detrimental effects of early pregnancy. The court believes that this traditional practice should not be continued and the sooner it is given up the better it would be for the best interest of the girl child and for society as a whole.
• Further, looking at the facts of the case, the Court observed that merely because the two adults are living together for few days, their claim of live-in-relationship may not be enough to hold that they are truly in live-in-relationship.
• The Court noted that the boy was representing the Girl, claiming himself to be the next friend of minor and as per averments in the writ petition, entire blame had been put upon the natural guardians of the minor girl to set up compelling circumstances for her to voluntarily leave the house of parents, to join the boy.
• Further, the Court observed that that the Boy is already accused of kidnapping the minor daughter of, therefore his stand to claim himself as the lawful representative of a minor girl is not worth acceptance. It was also noted by the court that the boy has not explained why the minor girl after leaving the house did not make any complaint either to the police against her parents or contacted any other close relative to resolve her differences with the parents.
• Thus, it is apparent that the present petition has been filed hastily by the petitioner to put up a defense to the above FIR registered at the instance of the respondent.
• Lastly, the Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Policeto 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.
• Before parting, the Court also opined that despite the penal provisions are in place through the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, but child marriages are taking place in violation of the provisions of the said Act.

What are your thoughts on this issue?