Punjab-Haryana High Court
Komalpreet Kaur And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 7 April, 2021201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRWP-44 of 2021
Date of Decision: 07.04.2021
Komalpreet Kaur and another …Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others …Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH
Present:- Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Sandeep Singh Deol, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate,
for respondents no.4 to 8.
*****
AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (Oral)
Case heard by video conferencing.
On 06.01.2021, the following order had been passed by this
court:-
“Case heard by video conferencing.
By this petition, the petitioners seek protection of
life and liberty at the hands of respondents no. 4 to 8, upon them
having married each other (as contended) against the wishes of the
said respondents, on 29.12.2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to rely
upon a judgment of this court (co-ordinate Bench), in Priyapreet
Kaur and another vs. State of Punjab and others (CRWP No.
10828-2020), decided on 23.12.2020, to submit that despite
Section 15 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006,
stipulating that all offences punishable under the provisions of
that Act are cognizable offences, the petitioners cannot be arrested
and that no proceedings under the provisions of that Act would lie
against them.
Notice of motion.
On the asking of the court, Mr. Ramdeep Partap
Singh, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondents no.
1 to 3.
A copy of the petition be emailed to learned State
counsel by learned counsel for the petitioner today itself.
Adjourned to 21.01.2021.
Respondents no. 4 to 8 to be served by way of
normal as well as dasti process by the next date of hearing.
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 05:56:12 :::
CRWP-44 of 2021 -2-
(It is however made clear that service of notice by
dasti process shall be effected while taking all precautions as are
necessary during this period of the COVID-19 pandemic,
including distancing and wearing of mask etc.).
Learned counsel for the petitioners would
specifically address arguments as to whether Section 15 of the
aforesaid Act, has been duly noticed and dealt with in the said
judgment, since he has sent it only by way of a ‘Whatsapp
communication’ to the Reader of this court and it is not on record
otherwise.
In the meanwhile, though proceedings under the
provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, shall
not remain stayed, it is directed that the petitioners be not arrested
(with a female in any case prohibited from being arrested in view
of the proviso to Section 11 of the said Act), and with it otherwise
to be ensured that since protection of life and liberty (as per law)
is a fundamental right enshrined in under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, the life and liberty of the petitioners shall be
duly protected.”
Thereafter, on 16.02.2021, the following order had been passed
(after reproduction of the order passed on 06.01.2021):-
“Thereafter, as recorded in the order dated
21.01.2021, learned counsel had actually relied upon a
judgment of the Supreme Court in Hardev Singh v. Harpreet
Kaur and others (CRA no.1331 of 2013, decided on
07.11.2019), with learned counsel for respondents no.4 to 8
having sought time to try and distinguish the said judgment.
Today Mr. Arora very fairly submits that he would
not be able to distinguish the said judgment.
It is therefore necessary to notice here that in the
said judgment, first the Supreme Court has referred to Section 9
of the Prohibition of the Child Marriage Act, 2006, which reads
as follows:-
“9. Punishment for male adult marrying a child.–Whoever,
being a male adult above eighteen years of age, contracts a child
marriage shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment which may
extend to two years or with fine which may extend to one lakh
rupees or with both.”
Thereafter, after going into the scheme of the Act of
2006, it was held as follows:-
“3.8. Section 9 of the 2006 Act must be viewed in the
backdrop of this gender dimension to the practice of child marriage.
Thus, it can be inferred that the intention behind punishing only
male adults contracting child marriages is to protect minor young
girls from the negative consequences thereof by creating a deterrent
effect for prospective grooms who, by virtue of being above
eighteen years of age are deemed to have the capacity to opt out of
such marriages. Nowhere from the discussion above can it be
gleaned that the legislators sought to punish a male between the age
of eighteen and twentyone years who contracts into a marriage with
a female adult. Instead, the 2006 Act affords such a male, who is a
child for the purposes of the Act, the remedy of getting the marriage
2 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 05:56:13 :::
CRWP-44 of 2021 -3-
annulled by proceeding under Section 3 of the 2006 Act. Hence,
male adults between the age of eighteen and twentyone years of age,
who marry female adults cannot be brought under the ambit of
Section 9, as this is not the mischief that the provision seeks to
remedy.
3.9. Our views are supported by the marginal note of
Section 9, which reads “Punishment for male adult marrying a
child”. It is well settled that where any ambiguity exists with regard
to the interpretation of a legislative provision, the marginal note can
be used in aid of construction, having regard to the object of the
legislation and the mischief
it seeks to remedy.
In view of the above, the words “male adult above
eighteen years of age, contracts a child marriage” in Section 9 of the
2006 Act should be read as “male adult above eighteen years of age
marries a child”.
4. Having regard to the above discussion, Section 9 of the
2006 Act does not apply to the present case at all. By way of
abundant caution, we wish to clarify that we are not commenting on
the validity of marriages entered into by a man aged between
eighteen and twenty one years and an adult woman. In such cases,
the man may have the option to get his
marriage annulled under Section 3 of the 2006 Act, subject to the
conditions prescribed therein.”
That being so, with petitioner no.1 in the present case,
i.e. the girl, admittedly being above the age of 18 years even as
per respondents no.4 to 8, i.e. her parents and relatives, simply
because petitioner no.2 is below the legally marriageable age
for males (as per the Act of 2006 , as also as per the provisions
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955), obviously Section 9 of the
Act of 2006 cannot operate to take him into custody, or to hold
that he has committed any cognizable offence.
However, whether or not the petitioners are liable
to be prosecuted in terms of Section 18 of the Act of 1955
would be something learned counsel for the parties would need
to address arguments on.
Of court it is to be observed by this court that
though what has been held by their Lordships in the context of
Section 9 of the Act of 2006, may seem to apply even to an
offence punishable under Section 18 of the Act of 1955,
(inasmuch as its application to Section 5 (iii) of that Act is
concerned), however, that issue not having been gone into by
the Supreme Court, with it obviously not having been brought
out in the petition before that Court, in my opinion, counsel for
the parties would need to address arguments in that regard.
Adjourned to 03.03.2021.
Interim order to continue.”
Today learned counsel for the petitioners points to the second part of
Schedule I annexed with the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, and points out
that if any offence is committed (other than under the provisions of the IPC), as
3 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 05:56:13 :::
CRWP-44 of 2021 -4-
carries a maximum imprisonment of less than 3 years, it would a non-
cognizable and bailable offence.
Section 18 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, reads as follows:-
18. Punishment for contravention of certain other
conditions for a Hindu marriage.–Every person who procures a
marriage of himself or herself to be solemnized under this Act in
contravention of the conditions specified in clauses (iii), (iv), 7 [and
(v)] of section 5 shall be punishable–
(a) in the case of contravention of the condition specified
in clause (iii) of section 5, with rigorous imprisonment which may
extend to two years or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees,
or with both.]
(b) in the case of a contravention of the condition
specified in clause (iv) or clause (v) of section 5, with simple
imprisonment which may extend to one month, or with fine which may
extend to one thousand rupees, or with both
In the present case, petitioner no.2 being below marriageable age
for males, i.e. he is less than 21 years of age, but with petitioner no.1 being
above the legally marriageable age for females, with her being above 18 years
of age, as is not denied by learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4, i.e.
the father of the girl, as already stated in the last order in terms of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in “Hardev Singh vs. Harpreet Kaur and
others”, 2020 (1) RCR (Crl.) 238, no offence punishable under the provisions
of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, would be made out; and the
offence punishable under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1955,
being in the context of clause (iii) of Section 5 of the said Act, for the
violation of which a maximum punishment of 2 years imprisonment has been
prescribed, obviously it is a non-cognizable offence in terms of the aforesaid
provision of the Cr.P.C.
That being so, with there there being no cognizable offence made
out against the petitioners, they would be given due protection of life and
liberty in case of any threat thereto, by the respondent State, as already stated
(which of course in any case is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of
4 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 05:56:13 :::
CRWP-44 of 2021 -5-
the Constitution of India); and if any competent person is aggrieved of the
commission of any offence punishable under Section 18 of the Act of 1955, an
appropriate remedy as per law would be available to such person, with no
comment made thereupon by this court.
The petition is thus allowed.
April 07, 2021 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH)
dharamvir JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable: : Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 05:56:13 :::
Comments