Marriage Hall Owner Not Liable For Child Marriage Without Knowledge Or Intent: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court (Kalaburagi bench) quashed criminal proceedings lodged against the owner of a marriage hall wherein a minor pregnant girl was allegedly married, holding that there was no hard and fast rule that the owner must verify the age proof of the bride and bride-groom while renting the premises.

Justice Rajesh Rai K in his order said:

"The allegation against this petitioner is that he is the owner of Hussain Hall, Vijayapura, where the marriage of victim and accused No.1 was performed. As rightly contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the marriage hall was booked by the parents of accused No.1 and the victim with the employees of petitioner. In such circumstance, there is no such hard and fast rule that the owner of the marriage hall should verify the age proof of the bride and bride-groom while renting out the wedding hall. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner has the knowledge and intention along with the other accused persons to perform the marriage of the minor victim with accused No.1. Hence the offences charge sheeted against the petitioner do not attract against him".

The Supervisor of Women and Child Development Department, Shivananda Nagar lodged a complaint with the Police stating that a minor girl–aged about 17 years 8 months who was pregnant had delivered a child in the Primary Health Center on 22.06.2024. She sought action to be taken against the persons who were allegedly responsible for the girl's marriage and the person who performed the marriage with her.

The Police registered a case against six persons wherein petitioner was arrayed as accused No.6, and he is the owner of Hussain Palace where the wedding of the minor girl and accused No.1 was performed. The case was lodged against the accused persons under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

Aggrieved by the Magistrate court's cognizance of the offences alleged against him, the petitioner moved the high court.

The petitioner's counsel contended that he was only the owner of the convention hall and was not aware about the girl's age. According to him, the marriage hall was booked by parents of accused No.1 and the girl. Since neither he had the knowledge that the girl was a minor nor the other aspects of the matter, the charge sheeted offences do not attract against him.

The court further said that it was well settled that continuation of criminal proceedings against any person on the basis of a frivolous or vexatious complaint is something very serious, as it would tarnish the person's image against whom such allegations are levelled.

"On overall perusal of the complaint and charge sheet materials, I am of the considered view that, even if entire allegations in the FIR and charge sheet materials taken into consideration, no case has been made against the petitioner for the offences alleged against him. Hence, continuation of proceedings against him is abuse of process of Court," the court said.

The plea was allowed and the court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.

Case Title: ABDUL HAMEED v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201493 OF 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order