UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Child Marriages Voidable, Not Void: Can Not Be Compelled to Live With Husband: Patna High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling on the status of child marriages in India, the High Court of Patna declared that child marriages are voidable and not void, emphasizing the paramount importance of child welfare and legal majority. This landmark decision was delivered on 16th January 2024 by the bench comprising Honourable Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya and Honourable Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri.

The court, in its judgment, stated, “A marriage contracted with a female of less than 18 years or a male of less than 21 years would not be a void marriage but a voidable one.” This observation came in the backdrop of a habeas corpus petition filed for the release of Shivani Kumari, a minor, from the State Girls Care Home in Patna.

The court denied the petition, upholding that a minor girl, even if married, cannot be compelled to live with her husband and must stay under the care of the State until she attains majority. The decision was rooted in the provisions of various legislations, including the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

Further elaborating on the subject, the court observed, “The welfare of a child is always of paramount consideration.” This statement underscores the court’s approach that prioritizes the overall well-being and rights of the child over the marital status or the consent given in a child marriage.

The case also highlighted the court’s commitment to the protection of children’s rights, with specific emphasis on the right of a child below 18 years of age to not give consent for marriage or sexual intercourse.

Date of Decision: 16-01-2024

NITISH KUMAR @ NITISH RAM VS The State of Bihar

 

Latest Legal News