EMPEROR Vs. FULABHAI BHULABHAI JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Government of Bombay from the order of acquittal, passed by the Sessions Judge of Nadiad in appeal, in a case in which the opponents and two others were tried under the Child Marriage Restraint Act (XIX of 1929) for performing a child marriage. The opponents were the parents of the bride who was above the; prohibited age. She was married on May 2, 1938, to a husband who was below that age. The latter's father was accused No.1 and the priest who officiated was accused No.4 at the trial. Accused No.1 alone was charged with the offence under Section 6 as a parent who had permitted the child marriage to be solemnized, and the remaining accused including the opponents were charged under Section 5 . The learned Magistrate convicted accused No.1 under Section 6 and the rest under Section 5 of the Act. In, his opinion the opponents, although they are not the parents of the bridegroom, who is a ' child' within the meaning of the Act, were present and had taken part in certain ceremonies such as ' Kanyadan' or the gift of the bride at the time of the ceremony, and were therefore liable. There is no suggestion that they performed any ceremony. The learned Sessions Judge took a contrary view because, in his opinion, Section 5 contemplated punishment of those who solemnized a child marriage, such as a priest or a Kazi or a Vakil, and did not apply to the parents of the parties to the marriage, and that Section 6 only applied to the parents of a child.

(2.) THE question before us is whether the opponents by permitting their daughter to be married to a child and giving her away have committed the offence under Section 5 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act. THEre is no question arising about the legality of the conviction of accused Nos. 1 and4. Section 5 says: Whoever performs, conducts or directs any child marriage shall be punishable with simple imprisonment... unless he proves that he had reason to believe that the marriage was not a child marriage.

(3.) I would, therefore, confirm the order of the learned Sessions Judge and dismiss this appeal. John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.