Skip to main content
Sabrang
Sabrang
Children Gender and Sexuality

Minor girl cannot live with her husband: Allahabad HC

Since the marriage was solemnised on her on free will, the court held it to be voidable, and said that she was free to reside with him once she turns 18

Sabrangindia 04 Feb 2021

Minor
Representation Image
 

The Allahabad High Court did not allow a minor girl to reside with her husband when it discovered that she was only 16 years of age. Justice JJ Munir perused her school certificates for the same and held that she could not prove that she was a major and will only turn one in November, 2022.

The Single-judge Bench relied on Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, to say, “The provisions of Section 94(2) make it vivid that in the face of a date of birth certificate from the school or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, the other evidence about the age of a victim cannot be looked into... She cannot be referred to medical examination for determination of her age, so long as her date of birth founded on her High School Certificate, is available.”

Adding emphasis on the High School Certificate, Justice Munir said, “even if it is the prosecutrix's stand, which this Court assumes to be so that she is 18 years old, and has married of her free will, she cannot be regarded as a major or permitted to prove herself a major, by asking herself to be referred to medical examination by a Board of Doctors, so long as her High School Certificate is clear on the point.”

The court was hearing a matter challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate who allowed the couple to live together. Its order was challenged as the appellant believed that the Magistrate had erred in believing that the girl was an adult and that to permit her to go with her husband would entail the permission for “statutory rape and also an offence under section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).” The girl had submitted that she was born in 2002 instead of 2004, which is her real birth year according to her school certificate.

When the court interacted with her, she said, “Mai Apni Marzi se Uske Saath Gayi Thi, Main Apne Pati Ke Pass Jana Chahti Hun.” (I had gone with him on my own free will and I want to stay with him). After she expressed her desire to reside with her husband, the court noted that their marriage was not “void” but “voidable”, which means that the girl may continue to maintain her marital status as soon as she attains the majority age of 18.

“..it is evident that she has not been enticed away. Rather, she has left her home of her own accord and married him. In this view of the matter, the marriage would not be void under Section 12 of the Act of 2006, but would be voidable under Section 3 of the said Act”, said the court.

Since she did not intend to go back to her parents the Court directed the State to place her in a suitable State facility other than a Nari Niketan until she turns 18 and “thereafter, she may go wherever she wants and stay with whomsoever she likes, including the man, whom she claims to be her husband.”

The judgment may be read here: 

 

Related:

Allahabad HC reunites interfaith couple, provides police protection

Cannot intervene if adult marries as per choice and converts: Cal HC

 

Minor girl cannot live with her husband: Allahabad HC

Since the marriage was solemnised on her on free will, the court held it to be voidable, and said that she was free to reside with him once she turns 18

Minor
Representation Image
 

The Allahabad High Court did not allow a minor girl to reside with her husband when it discovered that she was only 16 years of age. Justice JJ Munir perused her school certificates for the same and held that she could not prove that she was a major and will only turn one in November, 2022.

The Single-judge Bench relied on Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, to say, “The provisions of Section 94(2) make it vivid that in the face of a date of birth certificate from the school or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, the other evidence about the age of a victim cannot be looked into... She cannot be referred to medical examination for determination of her age, so long as her date of birth founded on her High School Certificate, is available.”

Adding emphasis on the High School Certificate, Justice Munir said, “even if it is the prosecutrix's stand, which this Court assumes to be so that she is 18 years old, and has married of her free will, she cannot be regarded as a major or permitted to prove herself a major, by asking herself to be referred to medical examination by a Board of Doctors, so long as her High School Certificate is clear on the point.”

The court was hearing a matter challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate who allowed the couple to live together. Its order was challenged as the appellant believed that the Magistrate had erred in believing that the girl was an adult and that to permit her to go with her husband would entail the permission for “statutory rape and also an offence under section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).” The girl had submitted that she was born in 2002 instead of 2004, which is her real birth year according to her school certificate.

When the court interacted with her, she said, “Mai Apni Marzi se Uske Saath Gayi Thi, Main Apne Pati Ke Pass Jana Chahti Hun.” (I had gone with him on my own free will and I want to stay with him). After she expressed her desire to reside with her husband, the court noted that their marriage was not “void” but “voidable”, which means that the girl may continue to maintain her marital status as soon as she attains the majority age of 18.

“..it is evident that she has not been enticed away. Rather, she has left her home of her own accord and married him. In this view of the matter, the marriage would not be void under Section 12 of the Act of 2006, but would be voidable under Section 3 of the said Act”, said the court.

Since she did not intend to go back to her parents the Court directed the State to place her in a suitable State facility other than a Nari Niketan until she turns 18 and “thereafter, she may go wherever she wants and stay with whomsoever she likes, including the man, whom she claims to be her husband.”

The judgment may be read here: 

 

Related:

Allahabad HC reunites interfaith couple, provides police protection

Cannot intervene if adult marries as per choice and converts: Cal HC

 

Related Articles

Sunday

03

Jan

Pan-India

Saturday

05

Dec

05 pm onwards

Rise in Rage!

North Gate, JNU campus

Thursday

26

Nov

10 am onwards

Delhi Chalo

Pan India

Theme

2020

Milestones 2020

In the year devastated by the Covid 19 Pandemic, India witnessed apathy against some of its most marginalised people and vilification of dissenters by powerful state and non state actors. As 2020 draws to a close, and hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers continue their protest in the bitter North Indian cold. Read how Indians resisted all attempts to snatch away fundamental and constitutional freedoms.
Migrant Diaries

Migrant Diaries

The 2020 COVID pandemic brought to fore the dismal lives that our migrant workers lead. Read these heartbreaking stories of how they lived before the pandemic, how the lockdown changed their lives and what they’re doing now.
Delhi HC

Hate Speech and Delhi Pogrom 2020

A spate of provocative speeches, that amount to hate speech in law and should be prosecuted allowed blood letting to spill on the streets of north east Delhi in February-March 2020
hashimpura

Hashimpura Massacre

The Lemmings of Hashimpura

Campaigns

Sunday

03

Jan

Pan-India

Saturday

05

Dec

05 pm onwards

Rise in Rage!

North Gate, JNU campus

Thursday

26

Nov

10 am onwards

Delhi Chalo

Pan India

Videos

Communalism

Gyanvapi controversy manufactured for political gain?

In wake of the ongoing controversy surrounding the Kashi Vishwanath temple - Gyanvapi mosque compound in Varanasi, watch this video and an exclusive interview of Maulana SM Yaseen, of Gyanvapi Mosque, conducted by senior research scholar Muniza Khan.

Communalism

Gyanvapi controversy manufactured for political gain?

In wake of the ongoing controversy surrounding the Kashi Vishwanath temple - Gyanvapi mosque compound in Varanasi, watch this video and an exclusive interview of Maulana SM Yaseen, of Gyanvapi Mosque, conducted by senior research scholar Muniza Khan.

IN FACT

Analysis

2020

Milestones 2020

In the year devastated by the Covid 19 Pandemic, India witnessed apathy against some of its most marginalised people and vilification of dissenters by powerful state and non state actors. As 2020 draws to a close, and hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers continue their protest in the bitter North Indian cold. Read how Indians resisted all attempts to snatch away fundamental and constitutional freedoms.
Migrant Diaries

Migrant Diaries

The 2020 COVID pandemic brought to fore the dismal lives that our migrant workers lead. Read these heartbreaking stories of how they lived before the pandemic, how the lockdown changed their lives and what they’re doing now.
Delhi HC

Hate Speech and Delhi Pogrom 2020

A spate of provocative speeches, that amount to hate speech in law and should be prosecuted allowed blood letting to spill on the streets of north east Delhi in February-March 2020
hashimpura

Hashimpura Massacre

The Lemmings of Hashimpura

Archives