The Karnataka High Court ruled that not just families, but priests, temple authorities, and venue managers can also face criminal liability for facilitating child marriages under Section 11 of the PCMA. The Court refused to quash proceedings, stressing that child marriage is a serious social offence that cannot be excused by later developments.
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that responsibility for child marriage does not lie only with the bride and groom or their families, but also extends to anyone who helps conduct or allows such marriages. This includes priests, temple authorities, and even managers of marriage halls or other venues where such ceremonies take place.
The Court gave this important observation while hearing a petition that sought to cancel criminal proceedings related to the marriage of a 16-year-old girl with a 27-year-old man. The marriage had taken place in a temple. The accused included the husband, the girl’s parents, and other family members, all of whom were booked under Sections 9, 10, and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
A Bench led by Justice M. Nagaprasanna refused to interfere with the ongoing criminal case and strongly emphasized the seriousness of the issue. The Court stated:
“The pernicious practice of child marriage must be decisively uprooted. It must also be observed that responsibility does not rest solely on contracting parties. Where a marriage is solemnised in a temple, the management of a temple and the officiating priest who performs the ceremony may fall within the sweep of liability under the Act. Where the marriage is conducted in a marriage hall, or other venue, its management and facilitators cannot claim insulation. The statutory design, particularly under Section 11, contemplates accountability for those who promote, permit or fail to prevent such solemnisation.”
The case started from a suo motu complaint filed by a Child Development Project Officer. It was alleged that a minor girl, aged 16, was married to a 27-year-old man at a temple. After investigation, the police filed a case and submitted a charge sheet under the relevant provisions of the law. The trial court took cognisance of the matter and started proceedings against the accused.
The accused then approached the High Court seeking to quash the case. They argued that the marriage took place during the COVID-19 pandemic when families were uncertain about life and future.
They also claimed that the couple is now living happily and that the marriage was later registered after the girl turned 18. Based on this, they requested the Court to stop the criminal proceedings, stating that the case would eventually end in acquittal.
However, the State opposed this plea and argued that the facts clearly show that a child marriage had taken place, and therefore the case should continue.
The High Court agreed with the State and observed that the key facts were not in dispute. The girl was a minor at the time of marriage, and the man was an adult. This itself was enough to establish an offence under the law.
The Court then explained the legal provisions in detail. Section 9 punishes an adult male who marries a minor girl. Section 10 covers those who perform or help in conducting such marriages, including priests and relatives.
Section 11 goes even further and makes liable anyone who promotes, permits, or fails to prevent such a marriage, including parents or guardians. The law even presumes that a person responsible for a minor has failed to prevent the marriage unless proven otherwise.
The Court highlighted that these provisions show that child marriage is not just a private family matter but a serious social issue that needs strict action against everyone involved.
The Court also rejected the argument that the accused were unaware of the law. It clearly stated that ignorance of law is not a valid defence, especially when the people involved were adults and knew the girl’s age. The Court further said that just because the couple is now living happily does not erase the illegal act that happened earlier. Criminal responsibility is decided based on the situation at the time of the offence, not on later developments.
The Court also discussed the harmful effects of child marriage. It pointed out that early marriage affects a girl’s education, health, and overall development. It can expose her to exploitation and long-term social and economic problems. The Court warned that if such acts are ignored simply because the couple later adjusts, the goal of ending child marriage will never be achieved.
Importantly, the Court clarified that priests and venue providers cannot escape responsibility. If a child marriage takes place in a temple, both the priest and the temple management can be held liable. Similarly, marriage hall owners or managers can also be held responsible if they allow such events to happen. The law is designed to ensure that anyone who plays a role in such marriages is held accountable.
In conclusion, the Court found no valid reason to stop the criminal proceedings and dismissed the petition. It allowed the trial to continue as per law.
The Court also stressed the need for preventive steps. It directed that awareness notices should be displayed at temples, marriage halls, and other places where marriages are conducted. These notices should clearly state that marrying a person below 18 years is illegal and punishable. The Court also urged print and electronic media to spread awareness about the prohibition of child marriage.
Ending with a strong message, the Court stated:
“The law protects childhood, so that it may blossom into informed adulthood. This Court will not permit this protection to be diminished”.
This judgment sends a clear signal that child marriage will not be tolerated and that everyone involved, directly or indirectly, can face legal consequences.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Child Marriage
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
