Child marriage illegal; subsequent marital harmony does not negate criminal liability.

The petitioners (accused Nos. 1 to 5) are challenging proceedings in C.C.No.4782 of 2022 before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, stemming from Crime No.61 of 2021.

This case involves alleged offenses under Sections 9, 10, and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

The prosecution, initiated by a suo motu complaint from the Child Development Project Officer on August 9, 2021, alleges that petitioner No.1, aged 27, married a minor named Rakshitha, daughter of petitioners 4 and 5, who was 16 years old at the time.

The marriage reportedly occurred on August 30, 2021, at Sri Thabblingeshwara Temple, Bullahalli Village, Devanahalli Taluk.

Subsequently, the jurisdictional police investigated and filed a charge sheet, and the court took cognizance, registering C.C.No.4782 of 2022.

The petitioners argue that the parents were ignorant of the law and its consequences and that the marriage was performed during the COVID-19 pandemic out of fear for their daughter's life.

They also state that the couple is now living happily, and the marriage was registered after the girl turned 18.

The matter is currently at the stage of hearing before charge.

1. Whether the ongoing criminal proceedings against the petitioners for offenses under Sections 9, 10, and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, should be quashed despite the admitted fact that the marriage involved a minor girl.

The court primarily applied Sections 9, 10, and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, which criminalize child marriage and related actions.

Section 9 punishes a male adult above 18 marrying a child with rigorous imprisonment or fine or both.

Section 10 penalizes those who perform, conduct, direct, or abet child marriage with rigorous imprisonment and fine.

Section 11 punishes individuals, including parents, guardians, or any person in charge of a child, who promote, permit, or negligently fail to prevent child marriages, with rigorous imprisonment and fine, with a proviso that no woman shall be punishable with imprisonment.

Section 11(2) introduces a presumption that if a minor child contracts a marriage, the person in charge has negligently failed to prevent it.

The court also referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation of these sections in *Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action v. Union of India*, which highlights child marriage as a social wrong demanding accountability.

Additionally, the court cited *Moidutty Musliyar v. Sub-Inspector Vadakkencherry Police Station* from the Kerala High Court, emphasizing the importance of prohibiting child marriage due to its detrimental effects on children's rights.

The court found that the admitted facts squarely bring the case within the ambit of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

Petitioner No.1, an adult male, married a 16-year-old minor, which constitutes a "child marriage" as defined by Section 2B and Section 2F of the Act.

The petitioners' contention of ignorance of law was rejected, as "ignorance of law is no excuse".

The argument that the couple is now living happily and the marriage was subsequently registered after the girl turned 18 was deemed irrelevant to the criminal liability, which is measured at the time of the commission of the offense.

The court stressed that child marriage is a denial of basic human rights, curtailing education, imperiling health, and exposing children to exploitation.

It affirmed that the statutory provisions of Sections 9, 10, and 11 create a clear legislative intent against child marriage, holding all involved parties, including parents (petitioners 2, 3, 4, and 5) and the male adult (petitioner 1), accountable.

The court emphasized that allowing such quashment would convert penal law into a matter of retrospective validation through sentiment, which would hinder the eradication of child marriage.

The petition was rejected, and the petitioners must face trial for the offenses under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

The court explicitly stated that it would not extend its protective arm to those who indulge in child marriage, reinforcing the statutory mandate and societal imperative to eradicate this practice.