ROOP NARAYAN VERMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for the following reliefs :

(2.) Petitioner and respondent No. 3 are Hindus by religion. When petitioner was about 7 years and respondent No. 3 was about 4 years, they had been tied with wedlock on 21-4 1969 at village Boriakala, Tehsil and District Raipur. After a lapse of around 23 years from the date of marriage, respondent No. 3 filed an application on 6-7-1992 against the petitioner claiming maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month, before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Raipur under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. (henceforth "the code"). Petitioner contested it on various ground inter alia, with the specific ground that the marriage was not solemnized in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (henceforth "the Act 1955"), and it is against the provisions of Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929 (henceforth "the Act 1929"). Learned Magistrate, after enquiry and hearing to the parlies, passed an order on 6-7-2002 and thereby directed the petitioner to make payment of amount of Rs. 750/- per month to respondent No. 3 towards her maintenance. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision bearing No. 315/2002. Learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge Raipur exercising revisional jurisdiction after hearing the parties, dismissed the revision vide order dated 4-7-2002 (sic).

(3.) Both those orders are the root cause for compelling the petitioner to institute this petition, who averred that so far criteria of age as prescribed under Section 5 of the Act 1955. petitioner and respondent No. 3 were not within the age group; therefore, both of them did not acquire any legally enforceable obligation towards each other. The Act 1929 also prescribes age group; below that age group, there is a prohibition of marriage, petitioner and respondent No. 3 were below . the age group; therefore, their marriage was also hit by the provisions of Act 1929. State authorities had an obligation to restrain the solemnization of child marriage and to give effect to the provisions of Act 1929, but, they utterly failed to discharge their duties; had the State Authorities took effective steps for prohibition of child marriage, petitioner would have been saved from marrying respondent No. 3. Even laches on the part of State authorities allowed so many couples to live even after a marriage tie that is in contravention of the Act 1929. In accordance with the provisions in Section 13 (2) (iv) of the Act 1955, wife, who contracted the marriage under the age of 15 years has been permitted to repudiate her marriage whether consummated or not after attaining the age of 15 years, but husband has not been allowed such a right to repudiate the marriage. This discrimination on the ground of sex has been made between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 and such discrimination is not permissible within the scope of Article 15 of the Constitution of India.