Delhi High Court
Sunil Kumar vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr. on 26 March, 2007
Equivalent citations: 139 (2007) DLT 198, I (2007) DMC 786
Author: M Sarin
Bench: M Sarin, S Bhayana
JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. This petition for habeas corpus has been filed by Sunil Kumar, brother of Ram Prasad. Petitioner's brother Ram Prasad, being in love with Urmila Devi (minor) about 16 years of age, got married to her. The statements of Ram Prasad and Urmila Devi were recorded on 13.3.2007. As per the statement of Urmila Devi, who was in love with Ram Prasad, she left the parental home in Delhi on 11.2.2007 to join him in Panipat as pre-arranged. She stated that she left the house of her own volition and it was her suggestion that she and Ram Prasad get married. She got married to Ram Prasad on 12.2.2007 at Devi Mandir, Panipat. Photographs of the marriage have been produced. Both have cohabited together as husband and wife. Ram Prasad has also supported her statement. The parents of Urmila Devi, Raghunath Singh and his wife Roopwati were also present in Court. Raghunath Singh and Roopwati are extremely annoyed over the act of their daughter in eloping and marrying Ram Prasad and are unable to reconcile to the factual position. Statement of Raghunath Singh was also recorded. He stated that he and his wife do not wish to have any relationship with their daughter, who has betrayed their trust and confidence and were not interested in keeping her. As far as they were concerned, she can go and live with whomsoever she wants.
2. We had adjourned the matter on 13.2.2007 to satisfy ourselves with regard to the well being of Urmila. In the meanwhile, Ram Prasad has been able to secure employment with M/s.Sharma Strips Pvt. ltd. We had enquired from Urmila Devi about her state. She says that she is happy and would like to continue to live with her husband. Ram Prasad has a younger brother, his mother and two sisters. Urmila Devi is acceptable to their family without any gift or dowry.
3. We are conscious of the fact that the Supreme Court is currently seized with the question regarding lacunae in the provisions of law and disparities in legislation such as Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, Hindu Marriage Act, 1952, Explanation to Section 375 of the IPC, 1860, the Shariat, the Indian Divorce Act, Child Labour Regulation Act, 1986 and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 with minimum age of marriage, definition of marriage, child marriage etc. in Crl.M.P.No.2735/2006 in Crl.Appeal No. 1507/2007, petition for Special Leave to Appeal of 2006.
4. The Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 as well as relevant provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act are social legislations aimed at protection and empowerment 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 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.
5. None of the observations made hereinbefore by us shall be taken to have in any manner determine the validity or otherwise of the marriage or in any manner as having given our approval or otherwise to marriage below the prescribed age or to have encouraged such marriages since Urmila Devi happens to be a minor.
6. This order by which she has been permitted to live with her husband has been passed in the following peculiar facts and circumstances of this case:
(i) Urmila Devi has deposed on oath that she left the parental home of her own will and volition and she was neither induced or seduced or abducted in doing so;
(ii) Further she married Ram Prasad of her own volition and is living with him. Ram Prasad has supported her statement.
(iii) Parents of Urmila Devi were not amenable to any reconciliation and wish to severe all relationship with her and are not willing to keep her with them and are desirous of disowning her.
(iv) Urmila Devi herself is not willing at any costs to go over to her parents as she apprehends harm to her and her husband from them.
It is in the aforesaid circumstances that after satisfying ourselves that Ram Prasad is now gainfully employed and his family has willingly accepted Urmila Devi as their daughter-in-law without any gift or dowry, we have permitted Ram Prasad to reside with his wife as this is for her well being.
The petition stands disposed of.
