STATE Vs. HASIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Run Away Marriages' are manifestation of a generational change due to variety of factors, including increased interaction between the sexes, with young boys and girls attaining maturity rapidly. It is a complex problem with inter play of social, economic, religious, caste, educational factors, including sex education and vulnerability and backwardness of the weaker sex having its impact. The Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 as well as relevant provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act are social legislations aimed at protection and development of the vulnerable sex and have to be interpreted and worked accordingly. The consequences of considering such marriages as void or voidable need to be evaluated since the State as well as the social reformists who have not been successful to change the mindset of the people tuned to early marriages. By an estimate, prevalence of child marriages in the major States of West Bengal, Rajasthan, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh varies from 56 to 59%. Moreover, it is also to be noted that any adverse fall out of any law that makes such underage marriages as void or voidable would be borne by none other than the women and their progeny."[ AIR 2006 Delhi 37].

(2.) THIS Court was constrained to make the above observations in view of the increasing number of habeas corpus petitions by the parents for production of their wards who leave their parental house in these run away marriages. This Court deliberated on the growing tendency in minor girls leaving their homes to marry a person of their choice, entering into physical relationship with them after performing marriage and the validity of such marriages.

(3.) 'N' (name withheld to conceal the identity of the prosecutrix) a Hindu girl fell in love with Respondent, a Muslim boy. This is an unfortunate case where perhaps different religion of the Respondent and the prosecutrix 'N' was the biggest hurdle in their way to marry each other. They wanted to marry crossing this hurdle, hence firstly nikah was performed on 11.02.2005 and thereafter notice for intended marriage under the Special Marriage Act was also given. However, destiny had something else in store for them. While going through the Trial Court record, we notice the wedding card of 'N' filed along with an application seeking her exemption from appearance in the Trial Court for the reason that she was to get married on 13.05.2007 with another boy of her religion. Thus, the prosecutrix was got married to another boy at the age of 14 years 6 months and 26 days and we are left to ponder over whether the Respondent can be convicted under Section 376 IPC, as the prosecutrix had not attained the consenting age while entering into physical relationship with him as his wife.