MOIDUTTY MUSLIYAR Vs. SUB INSPECTOR VADAKKENCHERRY POLICE STATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kerala is known for its 100% literacy. But, it is sad to hear that, even after the enactment of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act decades ago, there are allegations of Child Marriage in Kerala. The saddest thing is that the petitioners herein are trying to justify the alleged child marriage stating that as per Mohammedan Law, a Muslim girl enjoys a religious right to marry after attaining puberty irrespective of age, even though the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act apply to all the citizens of India without and beyond India.

(2.) The prosecution case as per Annexure-I final report and Annexure-II FIR is like this : Integrated Child Development Scheme Officer (ICDS Officer), Vadakkencherry submitted a complaint to the Circle Inspector of Police, Vadakkencherry informing that a child marriage happened within the jurisdiction of ICDS Alathur Additional. The ICDS Officer relied on a complaint submitted by one K.Syed Muhammed in which it is stated that a child marriage happened on 30/12/2012. Based on this information and complaint, Crime No. 490/2014 was registered by the Vadakkencherry Police Station alleging offences punishable under Ss. 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (for short 'Act 2006'). Annexure-II is the FIR. After investigation, Annexure-I final report is filed by the investigating officer against five accused, who are the petitioners in this Crl.M.C, alleging offences punishable under Ss. 10 and 11 of the Prohibition Act, 2006. The prosecution case is that on 30/12/2012, the 1st accused conducted the marriage of his minor daughter with the 2nd accused as per the religious tenets and rites in Islam. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are the President and Secretary of Hidayathul Islam Juma Masjid Mahal Committee. The 5th accused is the witness who signed the record regarding the conduct of the marriage. Therefore, it is alleged that all the accused committed the offences. The petitioners who are the accused in Annexure-I final report submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence under Ss. 10 and 11 of the Prohibition Act, 2006 is attracted and therefore, the continuation of the proceedings is an abuse of process of court. Hence, this Crl.M.C. is filed.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.