Court Emphasizes Statutory Restrictions on Marriage Capacity and Prohibits Indirect Sanctioning of Child-like Marriages
In a significant judgment delivered by Justice Garima Prashad of the Allahabad High Court, the court has dismissed a writ petition seeking protection for a live-in relationship between Shajiya Parveen, a 20-year-old woman, and a 19-year-old male, against familial interference. The court ruled that such a relationship cannot be legitimized under Article 21 of the Constitution of India if one party is statutorily classified as a "child" under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
The petitioners, represented by counsel Mahipal Singh, sought directions to restrain the family members of the female petitioner from interfering with their cohabitation. They argued that although they cannot marry legally under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 due to the male petitioner's age, they should be allowed to continue their live-in relationship without interference.
The State's counsel, Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, contended that the petitioner's relationship circumvents statutory age restrictions for marriage, as the male, being under 21 years of age, is considered a "child" under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. The court concurred, emphasizing that statutory policy concerning age, maturity, and legal capacity cannot be neutralized through a broad invocation of Article 21.
Justice Prashad elaborated that the legislative scheme governing marriage capacity in India is underpinned by several enactments, including the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. These statutes uniformly prescribe conditions for the legal capacity to marry, including minimum age requirements. The court held that a relationship functioning as an alternative to a legally impermissible marriage cannot receive judicial sanction.
The judgment stressed that the doctrine of indirect facilitation applies, which means what cannot be done directly (such as marrying underage) cannot be indirectly permitted (such as through a live-in relationship). The court maintained that while individuals in such relationships are entitled to protection from harm, illegal detention, or coercion, this protection cannot extend to facilitating an arrangement that bypasses statutory marriage restrictions.
Furthermore, the judgment addressed the role of parents or guardians, affirming that they cannot be restrained from taking lawful steps to prevent child marriages, as per Section 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. The court also noted that previous judgments do not override statutory age restrictions specific to marriage laws.
The court dismissed the petition due to the lack of specific incidents or evidence of threats or coercion from the petitioners' families, stating that vague allegations do not warrant judicial intervention. The petitioners are advised to approach police authorities for any specific unlawful acts.
The ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to uphold legislative intent and statutory frameworks concerning marriage capacity, affirming the importance of age and maturity in such unions.
Bottom Line:
Live-in relationships involving a male below 21 years of age, classified as a "child" under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, cannot receive legal protection or legitimacy under Article 21 if such relationships operate as substitutes for impermissible marriages under statutory frameworks.
Statutory provision(s): Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, Special Marriage Act, 1954, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Shajiya Parveen v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2894501
