Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunita Devi And Anr vs Ut Of Chandigarh And Ors on 11 September, 2014
Author: Amol Rattan Singh
Bench: Amol Rattan Singh
CRM No.M-29662 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-29662 of 2014
Date of decision:-11.09.2014
Sunita Devi and another ....Petitioners
Versus
State of U.T., Chandigarh and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH
Present: Mr. Binat Sharma, Advocate
for Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. A.S. Virk, Additional Public Prosecutor, UT, Chandigarh
for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. R.K. Gautam, Advocate
for respondents No.4 & 5.
AMOL RATTAN SINGH J. (Oral)
In response to notice issued, Mr. A.S. Virk puts in appearance for respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. R.K. Gautam, Advocate, for respondents No.4 & 5. Mr. Gautam submits that petitioner No.1 is actually not Sunita Devi, but Ashu, daughter of respondents No.4 & 5 and that Sunita Devi was her sister, who actually died at the age of four in the year 1991. He further submits that as per the certificate (duplicate), issued by the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Manimajra Town, UT, Chandigarh, petitioner No.1 (who is actually stated to be Ashu by respondents No.4 & 5), took admission in the school on the 7th of April, 2009 in Class 6 and left in mid-session in Class 8. Her date of birth recorded in the school is the 22 nd August, 1997, thus making her 17 years of age on the 22nd August, 2014.
Mr. Virk, on instructions from the Sub-Inspector present in Court to assist him, states that an FIR, bearing No.342 dated 22.08.2014, has MAHAVIR SINGH 2014.09.15 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM No.M-29662 of 2014 2 been registered in Police Station Manimajra, Chandigarh, at the instance of the mother of Ashu, i.e. by respondent No.5. In the said FIR, allegations have been made against petitioner No.2, of having enticed away the daughter of the complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the "Aadhar" Card issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India, the petitioner is actually Sunita Devi and that her date of birth in the Aadhar Card is given as 22.08.1995, which would make her slightly over 19 years of age as of today.
Be that as it may, as already observed by this Court in the order dated 29.08.2014, the validity of the marriage is not being commented upon, and keeping in view the above submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents, it is directed that while the life of the petitioners would continue to be protected, obviously being a basic fundamental right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution, proceedings initiated in respect of the girl allegedly being enticed away, would carry on and be taken to a logical conclusion.
It needs mention here, of course, that if the marriage is actually found to have been so performed, it would be a marriage voidable at the instance of the minor upon her attaining majority. Nothing however, is being commented upon further, with regard to the allegations of enticement, etc, which are stated to have been made in FIR which is a subject-matter of investigation and, of course, any proceedings which may be instituted under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Section 18 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by a competent person, would be taken to their natural conclusion.
MAHAVIR SINGH 2014.09.15 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM No.M-29662 of 2014 3
Nothing stated hereinabove will be taken to be a comment on the merits of the case, which will be subject-matter of investigation by the Investigating Agency, including the issue whether petitioner No.1 has given her correct identity before this Court or not. Needless to say, if it is found that she has given a wrong identity, a report shall be made in that regard to this Court, upon which, if felt necessary by this Court, it would consider passing a direction for initiation of proceedings under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioners.
Subject to the above report being submitted as and when it is ready but within three months, the present petition is disposed of.
After dictating the above order, before it was signed, when I came into chambers, I was informed by the Court Secretary that the girl, i.e. petitioner No.1, is expressing a desire to perhaps go with her parents. As such, I had requested all counsel and petitioner No.1 to come to the Chamber, after which all learned counsel suggested that I ask the girl independently, in the absence of everybody else, as to whether she wants to accompany her parents or not. However, I requested Mr. A.S. Virk, learned counsel for the State, to also remain in the Chamber and thereafter asked petitioner No.1 as to whether she wishes to go with her parents presently or not. She has unequivocally stated that she would like to go with the person she has married and that she has been taking her age to be above 18, in view of the fact that the "Aadhar" Card issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India, was issued after the application form was filled in on her behalf by her parents.
However, upon all learned counsel being called back into Chambers, learned counsel for respondents No.4 & 5 stated that the "Aadhar" MAHAVIR SINGH 2014.09.15 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM No.M-29662 of 2014 4 Card was prepared on the basis of declaration of age given by petitioner No.1 herself and that the address given in the "Aadhar" Card, as also the address of respondents No.4 & 5 as given in the petition, does not actually exist.
Obviously, all the above would remain matter of investigation by the Investigating Agency. However, presently, as per documents and photographs annexed with the petition, the petitioners seem to have married each other, in respect of which a "Certificate" has been issued by the Aarya Samaj Mandir Gokhale Market Trust (Regd.), Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054.
Petitioner No.1 being 17 years of age even as per the certificate produced by respondents No.4 & 5, obviously is not in a void marriage but in a voidable marriage, if the same has been actually performed as per custom and is otherwise a recognizable marriage, but for the age of the 1st petitioner.
The petitioners are both stated to be lodged presently at the Protection Home in Sector 19, Chandigarh, on account of the fact that they had approached Chandigarh Police for protection after the order of this Court dated 29.08.2014 and had consequently been taken to the said home.
In view of the above, the Chandigarh Police is directed to follow procedure, have the statement of the petitioners, as also of respondents No. 4 & 5 recorded before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Chandigarh, and thereafter, to take appropriate action as per law. Needless to say, protection of life to the petitioners would continue, in case there is any threat apprehended thereto.
A copy of this order be given to learned counsel for the State under the signature of Court Secretary.
Disposed of.
11.09.2014 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH)
m.singh/yakub JUDGE
MAHAVIR SINGH
2014.09.15 12:06
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document