Couple living happily now will not wipe out illegality of child marriage committed at the time of solemnisation: Karnataka High Court

A criminal case registered under the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage (PCM) Act, 2006, against the groom, his parents, and parents of a minor girl, cannot be quashed merely because the couple at present are living happily, the High Court of Karnataka has said.

“Criminal liability is measured at the moment of commission, not neutralised by the subsequent domestic peace. To accept otherwise would be to convert penal law into a matter of retrospective validation through sentiment. Parents who ought to bless their daughters with encouragement, education and empowerment, instead bless them with premature matrimony. If such conduct were to receive judicial indulgence, the eradication of child marriage would remain an illusive aspiration,” the court observed.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna made these observations while refusing to quash a case registered in 2021 under the provisions of the PCM Act against the groom, who was 27 at the time of marriage, his parents, and parents of the minor girl, who was 16 at the time of marriage.

Pointing out that the provisions of PCM Act does not hold responsible only the parents of the bride and the groom, the court said that when a marriage was solemnised in a temple, both the temple authorities and the officiating priest who conducted the ceremony may fall within the ambit of liability under the Act. Likewise, the court said, when a marriage took place in a marriage hall or any other venue, its management and facilitators could not claim exemption from responsibility.

Display notices

Observing that “the pernicious practice of child marriage must be decisively uprooted”, the court said that the Child Development Project officers should ensure that awareness of criminal liability was displayed at every venue, where marriages were ordinarily performed.

Temple authorities, marriage halls, and similar establishments should display notices, stating that marriage of a girl below 18 years was prohibited by law and attracted criminal consequences. Even the print and electronic media, as vital instruments of public consciousness, must also play their role in sensitising society as eradication of child marriage was not merely a statutory goal, it is a Constitutional imperative, the court said.

In the present case, the court declined to accept the claim of the accused persons that they were ignorant of the law, while pointing out that they were all working and they had registered the marriage after the girl completed 18 years. However, the court said that the ignorance of law was no excuse.

“The law protects childhood, so that it may blossom into informed adulthood. This court will not permit this protection to be diminished,” the court observed while dismissing the petitions filed by the accused persons.