Inability To Trace Beneficiaries Cannot Defeat Or Postpone Compensation Disbursal: Supreme Court Directs High Court Suo Motu Proceedings Disability Pension | Mere Manifestation Of Disease During Military Service Without Causal Connection Is Not Sufficient For Entitlement: Supreme Court Prevention Of Corruption Act | Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Without Proof Of Demand Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Appointment Contrary To Statutory Requirements And Advertisement Terms Amounts To Fraud On Public: Supreme Court IT Act | Once Settlement Commission Admits Application Under Section 245C, Assessing Officer Loses Jurisdiction To Reopen Assessment Under Section 148: Supreme Court NDPS Act | Prosecution Must Establish Unbroken Chain Of Custody For Samples, Failure To Comply With Section 52-A Renders FSL Report Inadmissible: Supreme Court Section 180 BNSS | Investigating Officers Must Adopt Transparent Practices; DGP Should Consider Making Audio-Video Recording Of Witness Statements Mandatory: Allahabad High Court Rowdy Sheet Cannot Be Opened In A Mechanical Manner Based On Mere Pendency Of Two Criminal Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Surname Protection Under Section 35 Trade Marks Act Not Restricted To Natural Persons': Bombay High Court Allows Corporate Body To Use Family Name Circumstantial Evidence | Prosecution Must Prove Connectivity Between Accused And Crime, Mere 'Last Seen' Theory Insufficient: Calcutta High Court Section 482 BNSS | Criminal Prosecution Against Company Directors Cannot Be Quashed When Investigation Reveals Active Role Beyond Mere Designation: Delhi High Court Cannot Be Permitted To Patch Up Weak Points: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Belated Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Plea Order XXI Rule 90 CPC | Burden To Prove Material Irregularity Or Fraud In Court Auction Sale Lies Upon Judgment Debtor: Kerala High Court Departmental Instructions Not Being Mandatory, Non-Compliance Does Not Vitiate Enquiry If Guilt Is Proved By Other Cogent Evidence: Delhi High Court Doctrine Of Res Gestae | Hearsay Evidence Can Be Admissible If Statement Is Spontaneous And Contemporaneous With The Occurrence: Madras High Court Relatives Cannot Be Roped Into Matrimonial Disputes On The Basis Of Omnibus Allegations: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Discharge Victim In Private Complaint Case Entitled To File Appeal Against Acquittal Before Sessions Court U/S 372 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Remand, Entitles Accused To Bail: Orissa High Court Section 18 Limitation Act | Acknowledgement Of Loan In Promissory Note Extends Period Of Limitation For Entire Debt: Delhi High Court Section 138 NI Act | Existence Of Defence Founded On Disputed Facts Cannot Be Ground To Scuttle Cheque Bounce Prosecution At Inception: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Promotion Does Not Exist Under Repealed Rules Following Policy Restructuring: Supreme 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