Supreme Court interprets Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act: Hardev Singh vs. Harpreet Kaur (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 7 November 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 1121

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose.

Can a man between 18 and 21 years of age be punished for marrying a woman above 18 years of age under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a recent judgment, clarifying the scope of Section 9 of the Act. The Court held that a male between 18 and 21 years of age marrying a female adult does not attract the penal provisions of Section 9 of the said Act. This judgment arose from a case where a man was charged under the Act for marrying a woman when he was allegedly under 21 years of age. The bench comprised Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Aniruddha Bose, with the judgment authored by Justice Shantanagoudar.

Case Background

The case involves an appeal against an order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, which had recalled its earlier order granting police protection to the appellant, Hardev Singh, and his wife, Harpreet Kaur (Respondent No. 1). The couple had married on 17 April 2010, without their parents’ consent. Following their marriage, they sought police protection from the High Court due to alleged harassment from Harpreet Kaur’s parents. The High Court initially granted them protection on 26 April 2010. However, the High Court later recalled the protection order on 26 November 2010, and directed the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Hardev Singh under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, based on the premise that he was a minor at the time of marriage.

The High Court’s decision to initiate criminal proceedings was based on the discrepancy in Hardev Singh’s stated age in his application for police protection, where he claimed to be 23 years old, and his school records, which indicated a date of birth of 30 June 1992, making him 17 years old at the time of marriage. The Supreme Court, in its interim order dated 14 December 2010, stayed the High Court’s order, which remained in effect until the final judgment.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted police protection to Hardev Singh and Harpreet Kaur. However, based on an application by Harpreet Kaur’s father, the High Court recalled the protection order and directed the registration of an FIR against Hardev Singh under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. The High Court’s decision was based on the discrepancy in Hardev Singh’s age, as per his school records, which indicated he was a minor at the time of marriage. This order was then challenged before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in question is Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, which states:

“Section 9. Punishment for male adult marrying a child. – Whoever, being a male adult above eighteen years of age, contracts a child marriage shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with both.”

Section 2(a) of the same Act defines a child as a person who, if a male, has not completed twenty-one years of age, and if a female, has not completed eighteen years of age. Section 2(b) defines “child marriage” as a marriage to which either of the contracting parties is a child. The Court also considered the legislative intent and the overall scheme of the Act to interpret the provision.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court can be categorized as follows:

• Appellant’s Argument:
  • The appellant contended that Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, does not apply to him as he was not a “male adult” above 18 years of age marrying a “child” since he was 17 years old as per his school records.
  • Even if he was above 18 years of age, Section 9 should not apply as the legislative intent was to punish male adults marrying female children, not males between 18 and 21 years of age marrying adult females.
  • The appellant argued that the High Court erred in recalling its earlier order under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as there is no provision for reviewing or recalling an order in criminal matters.
• Respondent’s Argument:
  • The respondent (State) argued that the High Court was justified in initiating criminal proceedings against the appellant under Section 9 of the 2006 Act, as he had misrepresented his age and was a minor at the time of marriage.
  • The respondent relied on the literal interpretation of Section 9, arguing that any male above 18 years of age who contracts a child marriage is liable for punishment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court could have recalled its earlier order under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Whether the High Court was justified in directing initiation of criminal proceedings against the Appellant under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order. The Court held that the High Court could not have recalled its earlier order under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as there is no provision for reviewing or recalling an order in criminal matters. The Court further held that Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, does not apply to a male between 18 and 21 years of age who marries a female adult. The Court clarified that the legislative intent of Section 9 was to protect minor girls from the adverse consequences of child marriage by punishing male adults who marry them, not to punish males in the 18-21 age group marrying adult females.

The following table shows how each submission was treated by the Court:

The following table shows how each authority was viewed by the Court:

The Court emphasized that the legislative intent behind Section 9 was to protect minor girls from the negative consequences of child marriage. The Court stated, “Nowhere from the discussion above can it be gleaned that the legislators sought to punish a male between the age of eighteen and twenty-one years who contracts into a marriage with a female adult.” The Court further noted that the Act provides a remedy for males between 18 and 21 years of age to get their marriage annulled under Section 3 of the Act. Additionally, the Court observed, “Our views are supported by the marginal note of Section 9, which reads “Punishment for male adult marrying a child”.” The Court also clarified, “In view of the above, the words “male adult above eighteen years of age, contracts a child marriage” in Section 9 of the 2006 Act should be read as “male adult above eighteen years of age marries a child”.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the legislative intent behind the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. The Court emphasized that the Act was designed to protect minor girls from the harmful effects of child marriage. The Court noted that the legislative history and the parliamentary committee reports showed that the focus was on preventing the marriage of young girls and not on punishing young men between 18 and 21 years of age who marry adult women. The Court also considered the marginal note of Section 9, which reads “Punishment for male adult marrying a child,” to support its interpretation. The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the understanding that in Indian society, decisions regarding marriage are often made by families, and women generally have less say in the matter. This perspective guided the Court to conclude that the Act was not intended to punish young men who might themselves be in a vulnerable position.

The following table shows the sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court:

The following table shows the ratio of fact to law that influenced the court’s decision:

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, does not apply to a male between 18 and 21 years of age who marries a female adult.
• The legislative intent of the Act is to protect minor girls from child marriage, not to punish young men in the 18-21 age group marrying adult women.
• High Courts cannot recall or review their orders in criminal matters under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• Males between 18 and 21 years of age who marry adult women have the option to get their marriage annulled under Section 3 of the Act.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the directions issued by the High Court to register the FIR against the appellant and set aside the impugned order.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, does not apply to a male between 18 and 21 years of age who marries a female adult. This clarifies the scope of Section 9 and provides guidance on its application. The judgment also reinforces the principle that legislative intent should guide the interpretation of statutes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Hardev Singh vs. Harpreet Kaur clarifies that Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, is intended to protect minor girls from child marriage and does not apply to males between 18 and 21 years of age who marry adult women. The Court emphasized the importance of legislative intent and the marginal note of the provision in interpreting the law. The judgment also reiterated that High Courts cannot recall their orders in criminal matters under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This ruling provides clarity on the application of the Act and ensures that its provisions are not misused.