Lack Of Title Documents In Lal Dora Land Does Not Relieve Plaintiff From Proving Continuous Possession To Claim Ownership: Delhi High Court Unauthorized Video Recording Of Court Proceedings Without Prior Permission Amounts To Contempt Of Court: Bombay High Court Finality Of Litigation | State Cannot Re-Litigate Settled Decrees By Alleging Collusion After Affirmation Up To Supreme Court: Allahabad High Court SC/ST Act | Court Cannot Determine Conversion Status To Quash FIR Before Completion Of Investigation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Absence Of Manufacturing Activity And Dilapidated Condition Of Premises Constitute Valid Grounds For Closure: Bombay High Court Non-Disclosure Of Existing Insurance Policies In Proposal Form Entitles Insurer To Repudiate Claim: Calcutta High Court Will Interpretation | Bequest Of "Above Said Property" Includes Entire Estate, Not Just Descriptive Portions Mentioned Therein: Delhi High Court Limitation Act | Court Can Balance Equities By Denying Interest For Delay Period In Land Acquisition Appeals: Gujarat High Court Article 21 Constitution Of India | Personal Liberty Of Detenue Cannot Be Curtailed Without Authority Of Law Post-Acquittal: Jharkhand High Court Order 8 Rule 1A CPC | Trial Court Should Not Reject Documents Merely For Delay If Foundation Is Laid In Pleadings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order XXII CPC Applies To SCC Suits; Rule 25 Of U.P. Urban Buildings Rules Does Not Govern Substitution Where Act Is Inapplicable: Allahabad High Court Recruitment Authorities Cannot Insist On Impossible Experience Criteria: Karnataka High Court Rules Against Rejection Of Motor Vehicle Inspector Candidates Order 38 Rule 8 CPC | Claim Petition Cannot Be Allowed Ex-Parte Without Adjudication On Merits: Kerala High Court Succession Certificate Under Section 372 Indian Succession Act Cannot Be Granted When Title Is Subject To Intricate Questions Of Fact And Law: Madras High Court SARFAESI Act | District Magistrate Cannot Adjudicate Disputes Between Borrower And Secured Creditor While Assisting Possession: Madhya Pradesh High Court Termination Based On Caste Status Without Cancellation Of Original Certificate Is Legally Unsustainable: Orissa High Court Section 13 Punjab Village Common Lands Act | Civil Court Jurisdiction Not Ousted In Private Injunction Suits Where Title Against Panchayat Is Not Sought: High Court Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act  | Equal Opportunity Policy Of Employer Is Mandatory; Routine Transfer Policy Must Yield To Special Provisions For Caregivers: Rajasthan High Court Compensation Must Be Just, Not A Pittance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Award In Motor Accident Claim Registration Act | Sub-Registrar Has No Power To Adjudicate Title Or Refuse Registration Based On Unauthorized Layouts: Telangana High Court Section 50 NDPS Act | Failure To Individually Communicate Right To Be Searched Before Gazetted Officer Or Magistrate Vitiates Conviction: Telangana High Court Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC | Civil Suit For Specific Performance Cannot Bypass Execution Proceedings When Breach Of Lok Adalat Compromise Is Alleged: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 269 BNS | Court Can Order Registration Of Fresh FIR Against Accused Who Absconds After Grant Of Bail: Madras High Court

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