Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Child Marriage Case Against Groom, Families; Warns Temples, Priests And Marriage Halls Of Liability
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a Child Marriage case against the groom as well as the families of the groom and the minor girl, by underscoring that ignorance of law or factum of a cordial marital relationship would not legalise the wrong already committed.“Parents who ought to bless their daughters with encouragement, education and empowerment, instead bless them with...
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a Child Marriage case against the groom as well as the families of the groom and the minor girl, by underscoring that ignorance of law or factum of a cordial marital relationship would not legalise the wrong already committed.
“Parents who ought to bless their daughters with encouragement, education and empowerment, instead bless them with premature matrimony. If such conduct were to receive judicial indulgence, the eradication of child marriage would remain an illusive aspiration…”, the court strongly remarked.
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna also warned that the liability for facilitating child marriages wouldn't be confined to the respective families or relatives alone. Even the temple and the officiating priests of such a marriage could be brought under the sweep of law. Similarly, even a marriage hall and its management may face the rigours of law for conducting child marriages, the court explained.
"Where a marriage is solemnized in a temple, the management of a temple and the officiating priest who performs the ceremony may fall within the sweep of liability under the Act. Where the marriage is conducted in a marriage hall, or other venue, its management and facilitators cannot claim insulation. The statutory design, particularly under Section 11, contemplates accountability for those who promote, permit or fail to prevent such solemnisation...Child marriage is not a private family engagement beyond scrutiny, but a social wrong, demanding accountability at every level of participation”, the court held in unequivocal terms.
The court also issued broad guidelines for marriage venues to 'protect childhood', so that it would 'blossom into informed adulthood'.
“…the Child Development Project officers shall ensure that awareness of criminal liability is displayed at every venue, where marriages are ordinarily performed. Temple Authorities, marriage halls, and similar establishments shall display notices stating that marriage of a person below the 18 years of age is prohibited, by law and attracts criminal consequences…”, the court wrote down in the order pronounced on 10th March.
The court also made a passing remark about the vital role that media and print can play in sensitising the public against the perils of child marriage.
The case was registered before the Devanahalli Magistrate based on a suo motu complaint made through the child development project officer. During the time of the pandemic, a 27-year-old groom was married to the 16 -year-old minor girl. The accused husband and parents argued that the marriage was registered only after the girl turned 18 years of age. The petitioners also resorted to a submission that the marriage was performed at a temple in Devanahalli all of a sudden because of their fear of the pandemic taking their lives.
The FIR was registered for offences punishable under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. The matter is currently at the stage of hearing of charges before the trial court. In the meantime, the petitioners approached the High Court for quashing the chargesheet against them.
“A girl married before 18 does not merely enter matrimony, she exits opportunity. The promise of education fades into abstraction. The dream of academic or professional advancement remains precisely that, a dream…”, Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed further that 'childhood should not be prematurely surrendered' at 'the altar of matrimony.'
The reverse burden of proof implied by Section 11(2) of the Act indicates the seriousness of the offence and the necessity to eradicate child marriage, opined the court.
“…. The statutory design, particularly under Section 11, contemplates accountability for those who promote, permit or fail to prevent such solemnisation…”, the bench sitting at Bengaluru said.
Advocate U. Sadakath appeared for the petitioners and Additional State Public Prosecutor B. N. Jagadeesha appeared for the respondent state.
Case No: Crl P. 1605/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 111