Summary
The High Court recalled police protection granted to a married couple and directed prosecution of the husband for child marriage after school records showed he had been seventeen at marriage. The Court set aside that order. It also construed Section 9 as punishing an adult male marrying a female child, rather than a male aged eighteen to twenty-one marrying an adult woman.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could recall the protection order and direct prosecution under Section 9 on the recorded age.
- Whether Section 9 punishes a male aged eighteen to twenty-one who marries an adult woman.
Provisions considered
- Section 9, Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006A male below eighteen did not fall within the penal provision; purposive construction also excluded a male aged eighteen to twenty-one marrying an adult woman. (¶¶ 2, 3.8, 3.9, 4)
Held
- The High Court could not recall the earlier criminal protection order under Section 482 in these circumstances; no exceptional circumstance justified the exercise. On the school record relied upon by the High Court the husband was seventeen, so Section 9 was inapplicable. (¶ 2)
- Read in light of its legislative history, protective purpose and marginal note, Section 9 concerns a male adult above eighteen marrying a child. It does not punish a male aged eighteen to twenty-one merely because he remains a child under the Act when his wife is an adult. (¶¶ 3.1, 3.2, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9)
- The Court did not decide the validity of such marriages or remove any conditional statutory right to seek annulment. Police protection was no longer needed because the couple reported living happily without family threats. (¶¶ 4, 5)
Result
Appeal allowed; the impugned order and directions to lodge FIR No. 122 dated 24 December 2010 were quashed. Police protection was found unnecessary in the circumstances reported to the Court.