Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1565 (JHR)

Pallabi Chandra v. State of Jharkhand

2015-12-17

AMITAV K.GUPTA

body2015
ORDER : This application has been filed against the order dated 24.06.2015, whereby the prayer of the petitioner to be released from the remand home (Nari Niketan, Deoghar) was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in Nirsa P.S. Case No. 193 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 2456 of 2015. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it would be evident from the Annexures-12 and 13, i.e., the admission card and the mark-sheet issued by Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi, that the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 07.09.1996 as such on the alleged date of occurrence i.e., on 16.05.2015, the petitioner was above 18 years of age. Annexure-3, is the statement of the petitioner as recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has categorically stated that she had solemnized the marriage with Aakash Ravidas (the accused in the present case) and had expressed her willingness to reside in her matrimonial house. It is argued by the learned that the trial Court without appreciating the above facts has rejected the prayer for release on the ground that petitioner was aged 17 years and 5 months on the basis of the age as mentioned in the F.I.R. It is argued that the petitioner had solemnized the marriage in Shiv Mandir at Deoghar, and also before the Marriage Officer, at Dhanbad, the certificate of which is at Annexure-6. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the legal guardian of the petitioner is her husband and she has expressed her willingness to reside with her in-laws. On the above facts it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the petitioner be given liberty to go with her husband. 3. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has opposed and submitted that the petitioner was a minor, aged about 17 years and 5 months on the date of occurrence, hence the said marriage is not valid in eye of law and the lawful guardian is her father, i.e., O.P. no. 2. That there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 4. Heard. On perusal of the statement of the petitioner under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is amply clear that she has solemnized marriage with the accused Aakash Ravidas. 2. That there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 4. Heard. On perusal of the statement of the petitioner under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is amply clear that she has solemnized marriage with the accused Aakash Ravidas. In the Admission Card and Marksheet issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education (Annexures 12 and 13) the date of birth has been mentioned as 07.09.1996. Admittedly, on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 16.05.2015, the petitioner was aged more than 18 years as such she was a major. 5. It is pertinent to take notice that under Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, (for short P.C.M., Act), in Section 2(a) „child? has been defined with respect to a male who has not completed twenty one years of marriage and for a female who has not completed eighteen years of marriage. Under Section 2(b) “child marriage” means a marriage to which either of the contracting parties is a child. Section 12 of the P.C.M. Act contemplates the circumstances when a marriage of a minor child is to be void. Section 12 (a) and (b) stipulates the marriage to be void when a minor child is taken or enticed out of the keeping of the lawful guardian, or by force compelled, or by any deceitful means induced to go from any place. Keeping in view the provision of the P.C.M. Act, 2006, as enumerated above it is abundantly clear that O.P. no. 2/ father of the petitioner has not brought any documentary evidence on record to show that the petitioner was aged below 18 years on the date of occurrence, whereas the school certificates (Annexures 12 and 13) as noticed above show that the petitioner was a major, aged more than 18 years. 6. The petitioner has solemnized the marriage as per statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the marriage certificate, Annexure-6, corroborates her statement. In the attending facts and circumstances the contention of the learned counsel for the O.P. that the petitioner was a „minor? and the marriage is void is not tenable. 7. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner is aged above 18 years and she is a major. Accordingly, she is free to go anywhere and the Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Deoghar, is directed to release the petitioner, who is at liberty to go either with her parents or to her matrimonial home. 8. 7. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner is aged above 18 years and she is a major. Accordingly, she is free to go anywhere and the Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Deoghar, is directed to release the petitioner, who is at liberty to go either with her parents or to her matrimonial home. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction the order dated 24.06.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, is set aside and the application is hereby allowed. 9. Let the order be communicated forthwith to the court concerned.