Mere Allegations of Harassment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Wife in Matrimonial Suicide Case 'Convenience Of Wife Not A Thumb Rule, But Custody Of Minor Child Is A Weighing Aspect': Punjab & Haryana HC Transfers Divorce Case To Rohtak MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Cooperative Society Is A “Veritable Party” To Arbitration Clause In Flat Agreements, Temple Trust Entitled To Arbitrate As Non-Signatory: Bombay High Court State Government Cannot Review Its Own Revisional Orders Under Section 41(3): Allahabad High Court Affirms Legal Bar on Successive Reviews When Several Issues Arise, Courts Must Answer Each With Reasons: Supreme Court Automatic Retention Trumps Lessee Tag: Calcutta High Court Declares Saregama India ‘Raiyat’, Directs Reconsideration of Land Conversion Application Recovery of Valid Ticket Raises Presumption of Bona Fide Travel – Burden Shifts to Railways: Delhi High Court Restores Railway Accident Claim Failure to Frame Issue on Limitation Vitiates Award of Compensation Under Telegraph Act: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Order, Remands Matter Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Heritable Right: Gujarat High Court Rejects 9-Year Delayed Claim, Orders Re-Issuance of ₹4 Lakh Compensation Court Cannot Rewrite Contracts to Suit Contractor’s Convenience: Kerala High Court Upholds Termination of Road Work Under Risk and Cost Clause Post-Bail Conduct Is Irrelevant in Appeal Against Grant of Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Crucial Distinction Between Appeal and Cancellation Granting Anticipatory Bail to a Long-Absconding Accused Makes a Mockery of the Judicial Process: Supreme Court Cracks Down on Pre-Arrest Bail in Murder Case Recognition as an Intangible Asset Does Not Confer Ownership: Supreme Court Draws a Sharp Line Between Accounting Entries and Property Rights IBC Cannot Be the Guiding Principle for Restructuring the Ownership and Control of Spectrum: Supreme Court Reasserts Public Trust Over Natural Resources Courts Cannot Convict First and Search for Law Later: Supreme Court Faults Prosecution for Ignoring Statutory Foundation in Cement Case When the Law Itself Stood Withdrawn, How Could Its Violation Survive?: Supreme Court Quashes 1994 Cement Conviction Under E.C. Act Ten Years Means Ten Years – Not a Day Less: Supreme Court Refuses to Dilute Statutory Experience Requirement for SET Exemption SET in Malayalam Cannot Qualify You to Teach Economics: Supreme Court Upholds Subject-Specific Eligibility for HSST Appointments Outsourcing Cannot Become A Tool To Defeat Regularization: Supreme Court On Perennial Nature Of Government Work Once Similarly Placed Workers Were Regularized, Denial to Others Is Discrimination: Supreme Court Directs Regularization of Income Tax Daily-Wage Workers Right To Form Association Is Protected — But Not A Right To Run It Free From Regulation: Supreme Court Recalibrates Article 19 In Sports Governance S. Nithya Cannot Be Transplanted Into Cricket: Supreme Court Shields District Cricket Bodies From Judicially Imposed Structural Overhaul Will | Propounder Must Dispel Every Suspicious Circumstance — Failure Is Fatal: : Punjab & Haryana High Court Electronic Evidence Authenticity Jeopardized by Unexplained Delay and Procedural Omissions: MP High Court Rejects Belated 65B Application Not Answering to the Questions of the IO Would Not Ipso Facto Mean There Is Non-Cooperation: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Undertaking to Satisfy Award Is Not Waiver of Appeal: Supreme Court Restores Insurer’s Statutory Right

Girl's Express Wish to Stay with Her Husband's Family Respected, Custody Not Forced Back to Parents Against Her Will Despite Her Minor Status:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Minor's Autonomy in Runaway Marriage Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld the autonomy of a minor girl in a runaway marriage case, emphasizing the importance of respecting the minor's wishes in deciding custody issues. The Court, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, delivered a nuanced judgment that balances the legal frameworks with the evolving maturity and personal desires of minors.

The judgment meticulously navigates through the intricate legalities involving the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and other relevant statutes. The Court observed that the marriage, while not void ab initio under the Hindu Marriage Act due to non-compliance with age requirements, could be considered voidable at the instance of the minor under the Child Marriage Act. However, the court placed significant weight on the expressed desires of the minor.

Preeti (aged 16 years and 10 months) and Sahil (aged 18 years and 6 months), both minors under the law, eloped and married against the wishes of Preeti's parents. Facing threats from her family, the couple approached the court seeking protection and the right to live together. The primary legal challenges revolved around the validity of their marriage, the application of child protection laws, and the immediate welfare and custody of the minor girl.

Autonomy and Maturity of Minors: The Court recognized the enhanced maturity of minors today compared to earlier times, emphasizing that "By age 16, adolescents' general cognitive abilities are essentially indistinguishable from those of adults," thereby supporting the minor’s capability to make significant life decisions.

Legal Guardianship and Marriage Validity: While discussing guardianship, the Court noted that the marriage does not render it void but voidable, highlighting, "Marriage not void ab initio but voidable at the instance of the minor," thus acknowledging the legal complexities due to conflicting statutes.

Protection and Custody: The Court decided against sending Preeti back to her parents or to a state home, citing her firm resolve to stay with her husband’s family. "It would not be right and proper for this Court to brush aside her views on the ground that she is not 18 years of age," Justice Kumar remarked, underlining the importance of the minor’s expressed wishes over statutory age limits.

The Court directed that Preeti be entrusted to the care of her mother-in-law under the supervision of the Child Welfare Committee until she reaches the age of majority. This arrangement ensures her protection and welfare while respecting her personal choices and autonomy.

Date of Decision: October 16, 2020

Preeti and another v. State of Haryana and others

Latest Legal News