In a historic judgment on the issue of Child Marriage, division bench
comprising of Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri and Mr. Justice Ajit Bharihoke held
that the “child marriage is a violation of human rights, compromising the
development of girls and often resulting in early pregnancy and social
isolation, with little education and poor vocational training reinforcing
the gendered nature of poverty”.
In the case filed by Association for Human Rights v Union of India and
Others, the petitioner highlighted as to how a girl was sold,
trafficked and married off to on “Yashpal” by her father. The incidence of
the marriage of the girl was first found out by the members of Human Rights
Law Network in February-March 2010. After exhausting all possible remedies
to get the offenders booked for the offence of Child Marriage, the team
members of HRLN and the Petitioner organisation decided to file a case in
Delhi High Court. In the case, it was alleged that the Girl was not
traceable and despite all efforts, the Police failed to trace the girl and
to book the offenders for the offense of child marriage. The Petitioner,
thus, filed a habeas corpus petition in Delhi High Court for a direction to
the authorities to trace the girl and to bring the offenders to the book.
When the concerned Police Station failed to trace the girl after repeated
orders of the Court, the Court transferred the case to the Crime Branch of
Delhi Police. After this, the authorities came into action and traced and
rescued the girl. They also lodged a formal complaint against the
Father and the Husband of the Girl for offenses under Prohibition of Child
Marriage Act, 2006. The father and the husband were also arrested by the
Police.
The Court then conducted in camera hearing of the case and also heard the
Girl Child in person. After hearing the parties, the Court passed the
order. While discussing the evil of Child Marriage went into the
sociological reasons for the prevalence of Child Marriage in the society.
This case was a classic example, which proved the sociologists correct, the
court observed.
The Court also observed that “Young married girls are a unique, though often
invisible, group. Required to perform heavy amounts of domestic work, under
pressure to demonstrate fertility, and responsible for raising children
while still children themselves, married girls and child mothers face
constrained decision making and reduced life choices. Boys are also affected
by child marriage but the issue impacts girls in far larger numbers and with
more intensity.” The Court, while underlining the medical and psychological
effects over the girl child, further observed that “Where a girl lives with
a man and takes on the role of caregiver for him, the assumption is often
that she has become an adult woman, even if she has not yet reached the age
of 18.”
As the issue, whether such marriages are void ab initio or not is under
consideration before a larger bench, the Court refused to declare the
marriage as void. However, differing from earlier orders, where the young
wives were allowed to live with her husbands, the Court directed that the
Girl will live with her parents till she attains the age of 18
years. The Court also took the undertaking of the parents of the girl, her
husband and also of the mother of the husband that the marriage will not be
consummated till she attains the age of 18. On attaining the age of 18,
the girl can exercise the right to get her marriage annulled, as
provided under Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. The Court made it clear
that “it is the option of the victim girl to accept this marriage or not. In case
she does not accept this marriage, it shall be treated as null and void.”
Read the full
Judgement
