CHHANGANI, J.—This reference raises an interesting question of law, namely, whether a court while issuing an injunction under sec. 12(1) of the Child Marriage Restraint Act (hereinafter called the Act) prohibiting the child marriage can issue a further direction that marriage of person alleged to be a child shall not be celebrated for a further period of six to eight years. 2. The facts which gave rise to the reference raising the above question of law, are briefly these— Bhupsingh who was the petitioner before the trial Court and is the non-petitioner in this reference and who shall be referred to as the petitioner, submitted an application in the court of Munsif Magistrate, Hindaun, on 23rd of February, 1963, against Muthari, Smt. Rumari, Parshadi and Smt. Badami, alleging that the non-petitioners (petitioners here and who shall be called non-petitioners hereafter) were about to solemnise the child marriages of their sons Kishanlal and Shanti Swaroop aged 10 and 12 years respectively. The Munsiff Magistrate directed issue of notices to the non-petitioners and also issued an ex parte injunction. The non-petitioners did not oppose the issue of the injunction but when the Magistrate proceeded to issue a direction for prohibiting the marriages of Kishanlal and Shanti Swaroop for a further period of eight and six years, the non-petitioners raised an objection. They contended that the Magistrate could prohibit only a marriage which had been arranged or which was about to be solemnised but the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to issue a direction prohibiting marriages for a period of six to eight years. The Magistrate over ruled the objection. The non-petitioners thereupon went in revision to the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur and who accepting the contention of the non-petitioners has made the present reference. 4. Notices of the reference were given to Bhoopsingh the petitioner and the non-petitioners Muthari. Petitioner Bhoopsingh has not cared to appear and oppose the reference. Mr. Guman Mal has appeared for Muthari and has supported the reference. 5. For a proper determination of law it will be proper to notice the relevant portion of sec. 4. Notices of the reference were given to Bhoopsingh the petitioner and the non-petitioners Muthari. Petitioner Bhoopsingh has not cared to appear and oppose the reference. Mr. Guman Mal has appeared for Muthari and has supported the reference. 5. For a proper determination of law it will be proper to notice the relevant portion of sec. 12 of the Act, which runs as follows :— "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, the Court may, if satisfied from information laid before it through a complaint or otherwise that a child marriage in contravention of this Act has been arranged or is about to be solemnised, issue an injunction against any of the persons mentioned in secs 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act prohibiting such marriage." It is abundantly clear that before issuing an injunction the court has to be satisfied that a child marriage in contravention of this Act has been arranged or is about to be solemnized. It is only after such a satisfaction that the court is competent to issue an injunction prohibiting such a marriage. The expression "such marriage" appearing at the end of the sub-section must be taken to refer to child marriage in contravention of the Act which has been arranged or is about to be solemnized. On giving due weight to the expressions "a child marriage.........has been arranged or is about to be solemnized" and "prohibiting such marriage" and grammatically and reasonably interpreting the sub-section as a whole, the proper conclusion appears to be that injunction can be issued only to prevent a marriage which has been arranged or is about to be solemnized. Sub-sec. (1) does not contemplate injunction prohibiting child marriages generally irrespective of such marriages being under contemplation or not. It may be significantly pointed out that a general prohibition against child marriages is contained in the Act itself which makes the persons bringing about such marriages punishable and the legislature did not consequently think it proper to provide for the issue of general prohibitive injunctions. Injunctions, it may be remarked, are issued to avoid present threatened dangers and not to provide against mere remote possibilities in future. The true position in this behalf may be explained as follows :— 6. Injunctions, it may be remarked, are issued to avoid present threatened dangers and not to provide against mere remote possibilities in future. The true position in this behalf may be explained as follows :— 6. If once a child marriage is prohibited under sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act and is not celebrated in pursuance of an injunction the matter ends there. If subsequently again a child marriage is arranged or is about to be solemnized a fresh cause of action arises and the court is competent to issue a fresh injunction prohibiting such a marriage. The Act does not envisage the issue of an injunction generally to prohibit any marriage at any time. 7. In the light of above discussions, I hold that a court while issuing an injunction prohibiting a child marriage cannot issue a direction that the marriage of the child shall not be brought about within six to eight years in future. 8. The reference is consequently accepted. The order of injunction issued by the Munsif Magistrate is modified and the direction prohibiting the child marriages for six years in case of Kishanlal and for eight years in case of Shanti Swaroop is deleted.