The second question involved in this case is that whether the persons, who have performed

the marriage are also liable for punishment. In this regard Sections 10 and 11 of the Act
provides for punishment for such persons and Section 15 of the Act provides that
notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an offence
shall be cognizable and non-bailable. Therefore, I hold that the person who has performed or
abetted the child marriage of petitioner No.1, is also equally liable and for that purpose, I
direct the state to take appropriate action by lodging the case against the persons who are
responsible for the performance of the child marriage in the present case.

Neelam Rani and Anr. vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (06.12.2010 - PHHC) : MANU/PH/3610/2010

Jitender Kumar Sharma versus State & Another, MANU/DE/1932/2010

Shishu Pal and Ors. vs. State of H.P. and Ors. (10.08.2017 - HPHC) : MANU/HP/0670/2017

25. Before we conclude, we would like to point out that the expression 'child marriage' is a
compendious one. It includes not only those marriages where parents force their children
and particularly their daughters to get married at very young ages but also those marriages
which are contracted by the minor or minors themselves without the consent of their
parents. Are both these kinds of marriages to be treated alike? In the former kind, the
parents consent but not the minor who is forced into matrimony whereas in the latter kind
of marriage the minor of his or her own accord enters into matrimony, either by running
away from home or by keeping the alliance secret. The former kind is clearly a scourge as
it shuts out the development of children and is an affront to their individualities,
personalities, dignity and, most of all, life and liberty. As per the 205th Report of the Law
Commission of India, February 2008, child marriages continue to be a fairly widespread
social evil in India and in a study carried out between the years 1998 to 1999 on women
aged 15-19 it was found that 33.8% were currently married or in a union. In 2000 the UN
Population Division recorded that 9.5% of boys and 35.7% of girls aged between 15-19
were married [at p.15 of the Report]. Such practices must be rooted out from our social
fabric. In the law commission reports on the subject as well as in the statements of objects
and reasons behind the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 and now the Prohibition of
Child Marriage Act, 2006, the apparent target seems to be these unhealthy practices.1
Shishu Pal and Ors. vs. State of H.P. and Ors. (10.08.2017 - HPHC) : MANU/HP/0670/2017

Manish Singh v. State (Government of N.C.T.) and Others, 2006 (1) LRC 414 (Delhi)

Pradeep Kumar Singh vs. State of Haryana (30.11.2007 - PHHC) : MANU/PH/1843/2007

In the present case, according to the factsheet, Amit, aged 20 years married Ankita aged 19 years
on 05.10.2019 at Ludhiana. It is pertinent to note that according to Section 32 of The Majority
Act, 1875 every person domiciled in India shall attain the age of majority on his completing the
age of eighteen years and not before. According to Section 2 (f)3 of the Act "minor" means a
person who, under the provisions of the Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is to be deemed not to
have attained his majority. According to Section 2 (a)4 of the Act, "child" means a person, who,
if a male, has not completed twenty-one years of age, and if a female, has not completed eighteen
years of age and according to Section 2 (b)5 of the Act, "child marriage" means a marriage to
which either of the contracting parties is a child.
As per the present facts, Amit has not attained the requisite age for marrying Ankita, as per law.
Hence, according to Section 12 (a), the marriage of petitioner no.2 which falls within the
definition of child and he cannot contract the marriage and his marriage shall be null and void.
In the case of Amnider Kaur And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others, the honorable court
noted that in view of the provisions of The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, marriage of
petitioners No.1 and 2 is void because petitioner No.2 has enticed away petitioner No.1 from the
1
Shishu Pal and Ors. vs. State of H.P. and Ors.
2
3. Age of majority of persons domiciled in India.—

(1) Every person domiciled in India shall attain the age of majority on his completing the age of eighteen years and
not before.
(2) In computing the age of any person, the day on which he was born is to be included as a whole day and he shall
be deemed to have attained majority at the beginning of the eighteenth anniversary of that day.
3
(f) "minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is to be deemed not to
have attained his majority.
4
(a) "child" means a person who, if a male, has not completed twenty-one years of age, and if a female, has not
completed eighteen years of age;
5
(b) "child marriage" means a marriage to which either of the contracting parties is a child;
lawful keeping of respondent No.4 and the Court in the garb of providing police protection,
cannot declare the void marriage as valid.
In respect to the present scenario, it is most humbly submitted by the counsel for the respondents
that the marriage contracted between the joint petitioners, i.e., Amit and Ankita is void. The
court of law, is not bound to provide any sort of police protection in case of void marriages. The
petitioners cannot be allowed to take the benefit of the constitutional remedy of protection of
their life and liberty on the pretext of their void marriage.

In lieu of the provisions of the The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, it is pertinent to
note that the Act is a Central Act which received the assent of President of India on 1.11.2007
and has been notified by the Ministry of Women and Child Development by notification
No.S.O.1850(E) dated 30.10.2007 which reads as under:

"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Prohibition of Child
Marriage Act, 2006 (6 of 2007), the Central Government hereby appoints Ist November 2007 as
the date on which the said Act shall come into force.
The notification was published in the Gazettee of India, Extraordinary Part II, Section 3(i)
No.479 dated 31.10.2007.

Therefore, this is the domain of the competent Court after following the procedure under the
2006 Act. The petitioners in the circumstances would be at liberty to avail their other remedies in
accordance with law. At last, it is most humbly submitted by the counsel for the respondents that
the marriage between the petitioners is void.

However, insofar as the present case is concerned, the same is for providing protection and it should be
disposed of, in accordance with law.

In respect to the present scenario, it is submitted that the life and liberty of the petitioners, i.e., Amit and
Ankita, is only endangered and can be threatened as long as their marriage legally subsists but since their
marriage has been considered and proven as void by the counsel for the respondents, there is no threat left
to their life and liberty. Hence, the case of the petitioners do not fall under the umbrella of the
constitutional remedy of the protection of life and liberty, enshrined under Article 21 6 of the Indian
constitution.
It is pertinent to note that the concept of freedom and liberty seems to have been misunderstood by the
young couples of "rebellion marriages". Amit and Ankita, the joint petitioners, for filing this petition,
despite being aware of the legal consequences of the marriage, went on to perform this marriage, which
was prima facie void. It is most humbly submitted that there was no deprivation of dignity of person and
inviolable right to life. These factors would only be within prescribed limits set down by laws and
supervised by the honorable court. According to the factsheet, it is stringent to note that a F.I.R. was filed
6
21. Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law
on 04.10.2019 by the father of the petitioner Ankita, in lieu of the latter being missing from her home. It
is vehemently argued that the petitioner Amit should be held liable under Sec 363 7 of Indian Penal Code.
In addition to this, as per the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is most humbly submitted by
the counsel for the respondents that the Court should not grant any police protection to fugitives of law. It
is also submitted that there was no infringement of life and liberty of the petitioners. A similar stance was
noted by the honorable court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Singh vs. State of Haryana.
“Taking into consideration the scope of life and liberty and the other relevant provisions of the Punjab
Police Rules, provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and considering the fact that the essence of law is to
serve and secure social solidarity so as to attain maximum good of the society and to protect the
individual, public and social interests a balanced approach is required to be adopted in the interest of life
and liberty which is required to be protected, we are disposing of the bunch of petitions filed by the young
couples. Thus, adopting the ratio of the judgments of the Joginder Kumar's case (supra) and Lata Singh's
case (supra) and also taking into consideration the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and
Punjab Police Rules, the Crl. petitions are disposed of.”

He further submits that not only petitioner No.2 is liable for punishment under Sections
363/366-A IPC but also the persons, who were party to this marriage are liable for
punishment under Sections 10 and 11 of the Act. It is further submitted that none of the
judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioners is applicable to the facts and circumstances
of this case and this Court should not grant police protection to petitioner No.2, who is an
accused of offence under Sections 363/366-A IPC and other provisions of the Act.

18. 'Run Away Marriages' are manifestation of a generational change due to variety of factor,
including increased interaction between the sexes, with young boys and girls attaining maturity
rapidly. It is a complex problem with interplay of social, economic, religious, caste, educational
factors, including sex education and vulnerability and backwardness of the weaker sex having its
impact. The Child Marriage Restraint Act. 1929 as well as relevant provisions of the Hindu
Marriage Act are social legislations aimed at protection and development of the vulnerable sex and
have to be interpreted and worked accordingly. The consequences of considering such marriages as
void or voidable need to be evaluated since the State as well as the social reformists who have not
been successful to change the mindset of the people tuned to early marriages. By an estimate,
prevalence of child marriages in the major States of West Bengal. Rajasthan. Bihar and Madhya
7
363. Punishment for kidnapping.—Whoever kidnaps any person from 1[India] or from lawful guardianship, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
Pradesh varies from 56 to 59%. Moreover, it is also to be noted that any adverse fall out of any law
that makes such underage marriages as void or voidable would be borne by none other than the
women and their progeny. It is for the Parliament to consider whether the present provisions of the
Hindu Marriage Act and the Child Marriage Restraint Act have proved insufficient or failed to
discourage child marriages and to take such remedial steps, as are required in their wisdom.

Pradeep Kumar Singh vs. State of Haryana (30.11.2007 - PHHC) : MANU/PH/1843/2007

9. The concept of freedom and liberty seems to have been misunderstood by the young couples of
"rebellion marriages". The evolution of the State from "'police State" to a "welfare State" is the ultimate
measure and accepted standard of democratic society which is an avowed Constitution mandate. No
doubt, the main function of the democratic government is to safeguard the liberty of the individual but its
exercise is subject to social control. If the liberty is absolute and unlimited and not guided by morality, it
becomes anti-social. The rule of law in a democratic society aims not only to protect the fundamental
rights of the citizens but also to establish an egalitarian social order. Liberty has to be controlled in the
interest of society but at the same time, the social interest must never be overbearing to justify the
deprivation of individual liberty. Liberty cannot stand alone but has to be enjoyed alongwith other virtues
like morality, law. justice, common good, for the orderly progressed social stability. Man being a rational
individual has to live in harmony with the similar equal rights of others. The concept of personal liberty in
context to Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been explained by Hon'ble Justice K. Ramaswamy in
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, MANU/SC/1597/1994 : 1994 (3) SCC 569, as follows:

The foundation of Indian political and social democracy, as envisioned in the preamble of the
Constitution, rests on justice, equality, liberty, and fraternity in secular and socialist republic in
which every individual has equal opportunity to strive towards excellence and of his dignity of
person in an integrated egalitarian Bharat. Right injustice and equality and stated liberties which
include freedom of expression, belief and movement are the means for excellence. The right to life
with human dignity of person is a fundamental right of every citizen for pursuit of happiness and
excellence. Personal freedom is a basic condition for full development of human personality. Article
21 of the Constitution protects right to life which is the most precious right in a civilized society.
The trinity i.e. liberty, equality and fraternity always blossoms and enlivens the flower of human
dignity. One of the gifts of democracy to mankind is the right to personal liberty. Life and personal
freedom are the prized jewels under Article 19 conjointly assured by Articles 20(3). 21 and 22 of the
Constitution and Article 19 ensures freedom of movement. Liberty aims at freedom not only from
arbitrary restraint but also to secure such conditions which are essential for the full development of
human personality. Liberty is the essential concomitant for other rights without which a man
cannot be at his best.8
The evolution of the State from police State to a welfare State is the ultimate measure and accepted
standard of democratic which is an avowed constitutional mandate. Though one of the main functions of
the democratic government is to safeguard liberty of the individual, unless its exercise is subject to social
8
Pradeep Kumar Singh vs. State of Haryana
control, it becomes anti-social or undermines the security of the State. The Indian democracy wedded to
rule of law aims not only to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens but also to establish an
egalitarian social order. The individual has to grow within the social confines preventing his unsocial or
unbridled growth which could be done by reconciling individual liberty with social control. Liberty must
be controlled in the interest of the society but the social interest must never be overbearing to. justify total
deprivation of individual liberty. Liberty cannot stand alone but must be paired with a companion virtue:
liberty and morality: liberty and law; liberty and justice; liberty and common good; liberty and
responsibility, which are concomitants for orderly progress and social stability. Man being a rational
individual has to live in harmony with equal rights of others and more differently for the attainment of
antithetic desires. This intertwined network is difficult to delineate within defined spheres of conduct
within which freedom of action may be confined. Therefore, liberty would not always be an absolute
licence but must arm itself within the confines of law. In other words there can be no liberty without
social restraint. Liberty, therefore, as a social conception is a right to be assured to all members of a
society. Unless restraint is enforced on and accepted by all members of the society, the liberty of some
must involve the oppression of others. If liberty be regarding a social order, the problem of establishing
liberty must be a problem of organizing restraint which society controls over the individual. Therefore,
liberty of each citizen is borne of and must be subordinated to the liberty of the greatest number, in other
words common happiness as an end of the society, lest lawlessness and anarchy will tamper social weal
and harmony and powerful courses or forces would be at work to undermine social welfare and order.
Thus the essence of civil liberty is to keep alive the freedom of the individual subject to the limitation of
social control which could be adjusted according to the needs of the dynamic social evolution.

374. The modern social evolution is the growing need to keep individual to be as free as possible,
consistent with his correlative obligation to the society. According to Dr. Ambedkar in his closing speech
in the constituent Assembly, the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are not to be treated as
separate entities but in a trinity. They form the union or trinity in the sense that to divorce one from the
Other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy. Liberty cannot be divorced from equality. Equality
cannot be divorced from liberty. Nor can equality and liberty be divorced from fraternity. Without
equality, liberty would produce supremacy of law. Equality without liberty would kill individual
initiative. Without fraternity, liberty and equality would not become a natural course of things. Courts, as
sentinel on the qui vive, therefore, must strike a balance between the changing needs of the society for
peaceful transformation with orders and protection of the rights of the citizen.

Deprivation of dignity of person, self-respect and inviolable right to life, would only be within the
prescribed limits set down by laws; assiduously supervised by courts; and executive excesses strictly be
limited. Excessive authority without liberty is intolerable. Equally excessive liberty without authority and
without responsibility soon becomes intolerable. Lest the freedoms and fundamental rights become
sacrificial objects at the altar of expediency. Unrestricted liberty makes life too easy for criminals and too
difficult for law abiding citizens. In a free society too many crooks blatantly break the law. blight young
lives, traffic in drugs and freely indulge in smuggling and claim fundamental rights to exploit weak links
of law, indulge in violence and commercial camouflage. Our values are drastically eroded because many
a man with no mere moral backbone than a chocolate éclair claim the freedom and free action which
results inevitably in increasing the members of violent criminals.
Pradeep Kumar Singh vs. State of Haryana (30.11.2007 - PHHC) : MANU/PH/1843/2007

24. Taking into consideration the scope of life and liberty and the other relevant provisions of the Punjab
Police Rules, provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and considering the fact that the essence of law is to
serve and secure social solidarity so as to attain maximum good of the society and to protect the
individual, public and social interests a balanced approach is required to be adopted in the interest of life
and liberty which is required to be protected, directions are required to be issued while disposing of the
bunch of petitions filed by the young couples. Thus, adopting the ratio of the judgments of the Joginder
Kumar's case (supra) and Lata Singh's case (supra) and also taking into consideration the scope of Article
21 of the Constitution of India and Punjab Police Rules, the Crl. petitions are disposed of with the
following directions:

Pradeep Kumar Singh vs. State of Haryana (30.11.2007 - PHHC) : MANU/PH/1843/2007