PARISA RAGHAVULU Vs. BORRA KOTAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision petition is filed by the two accused against the judgment of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Tenali, in C. C. No. 169 of 1954 convicting and sentencing them each to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- with two months' rigorous imprisonment each in default. The complaint is that the marriage of accused l's son was performed with accused 2's daughter, that the bridegroom was aged about 16 while the bridge was aged about 12 and that the parents were consequently liable to be punished under Sections 5 and 6, Child Marriage Restraint Act (19 of 1929 ). There is no doubt that the marriage is a child marriage within the definition of the Act. It was contended on behalf of the accused that no marriage was performed but, on the evidence, the First Class Magistrate found that the marriage took place and no sufficient grounds are made out that the finding of fact arrived at by the Magistrate is erroneous. P. W. 7 deposes that an old Brahmin officiated as priest and that six dhobies including P W. 7 came to carry the palanquin. I therefore confirm the finding that a child marriage took place.

(2.) THE main contention urged by Sri G. V. Raghavayya on behalf of the petitioner is that the terms of Section 6 were not complied with and that it was not proved that the minors contracted a child marriage. Section 6 runs in the following terms:

(3.) RELIANCE was placed by the petitioner's advocate on the decision in - 'munshi Ram v. Emperor' AIR 1936 All 11 (A) and it is true that the decision supports his contention. For the reasons already stated, I do not agree with that decision. In - 'bhagwat Sarup v. Emperor' AIR 1945 All 306 (B), Bennett J. , dissented from the view taken by Ganga Nath J, in AIR 1936 All 11 (A) and held as follows: