AYYA PILIAL Vs. MANICKAM PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision proceeding involves an Interesting point, with regard to the applicability of Sec. 5 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act. XTK of 1929, to the facts of the case. Section 5 runs as follows: Whoever performs, conducts or directs any child marriage shall be punishable. . . unless he proves that he had reason to believe that the marriage was not a child marriage. The 4th revision petitioner was the 5th accused in a prosecution under the Act, and the propriety of the convictions of the other accused in the case is now before me.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the 4th revision petitioner, a member of the Panchayat Board of the locality, attended this marriage, which was a child marriage. She does not claim that she had reason to believe that the marriage was not a child marriage; and, hence, the proviso to Section 5 is not relevant to the present facts. The problem is, whether a person who attends a child marriage, as a guest, and participates in some limited manner in the marriage, can be conceivably said to perform, conduct or direct the marriage within the mischief of Section 5 of the Act.

(3.) IN the present case, there arc only two overt acts ascribed to the fourth revision petitioner, as far as the actual marriage is concerned, apart from the indisputable fact that she attended the marriage. The first is that, at a certain stage, she brought the bride to where the bridegroom was sitting, thereby enabling the further ceremony of the marriage being gone through. The second is that, after the thali was tied, she asked the women assembled to perform kulavai. As is clear from the commentary in Vol. II, part I, of the Tamil Lexicon Kulavai really denotes a chorus of shrill sounds made by assembled women on festive occasions. Apparently, it is local custom, invariably characterising marriages in that class of society.