Press Reporter News Service
Chandigarh, Could 1
The Prohibition of Little one Marriage Act, 2006, doesn’t differentiate on the premise of faith, the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Courtroom asserted whereas listening to a safety plea filed by a runaway couple.
“It’s to be observed that regardless that as per the Muslim private legislation a sound marriage will be contracted between the events upon attaining the age of puberty, it’s to be additional observed that the Prohibition of Little one Marriage Act, 2006, doesn’t differentiate on the premise of faith, as regards the fee of any offences punishable below the provisions of that Act,” stated Justice Amol Rattan Singh.
The petitioners have been looking for safety of life and liberty after marrying on April 18 towards the needs of the respondent- relations.
Responding to a particular question, counsel for the petitioners acknowledged that the petitioners have been neither in a prohibited relationship, nor has any of them been married earlier.
Justice Amol Rattan Singh noticed the lady, as per her matriculation certificates’s copy, was proven to be simply above 18. The boy was admittedly beneath the legally marriageable age when it comes to the Prohibition of Little one Marriage Act, 2006.
Justice Singh added as per a Supreme Courtroom judgment, if a woman/girl was above marriageable age of 18, no offence punishable below the provisions of the Act can be made out. Consequently, the life and liberty of the petitioners can be duly protected in accordance with legislation.
But when the lady’s age was discovered to be truly beneath 18 years upon verification of certificates, the Excessive Courtroom order wouldn’t prohibit proceedings below the provisions of the Act.
“Additional, it’s made clear that if any of the averments made within the petition is discovered to be incorrect, particularly with regard to both the petitioners being in any prohibited relationship to one another, or as regards their earlier marital standing, this order shall not be construed to be a bar on proceedings initiated as per legislation,” the Bench added.
Disposing of the petition, the Bench made it clear that the lifetime of the petitioners can be protected below all circumstances because it was a fundamental elementary proper enshrined in Article 21 of the Structure.