CRM No.M-6835 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 12.07.2011 CRM No.M-6835 of 2011 (O&M) Samita Sharma & another ... Petitioners versus State of Punjab & others ... Respondents CRM No.No.M-7814 of 2011 (O&M) Paras Sharma ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab & others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present: Mr. P.P.S.Duggall, Advocate for the petitioners in CRM No.M-6835 & 7814 of 2011. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Amit jhanji, Advocate for respondents No.4 & 5. **** Mahesh Grover, J. (Oral) This order will dispose of above said two petitions. The petition No.CRM No.M-6835 of 2011 has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC by Samita Sharma and Paras Sharma with a prayer that their life and liberty may be protected as they have got married of their free will without parental consent and apprehended threats to their lives and liberty at the hands of respondents No.3 to 6. On 04.03.2011, this court directed petitioner No.1- Samita Sharma to be sent to Nari Niketan as she was not a major. During subsistence of this arrangement made under the CRM No.M-6835 of 2011 (O&M) -2- order of this Court, CRM No.M-7814 of 2011 has been filed by Paras Sharma with a prayer that FIR No.25 dated 28.02.2011 registered under Sections 363/366 IPC at Police Station Cantt. Ferozepur, Distt. Ferozepur be quashed. The reason given out for quashing the said FIR and consequent proceedings is that the FIR is an abuse of process of law as the petitioner has married Samita Sharma, who as per the FIR is the girl alleged to have been abducted by the petitioner. FIR has been lodged at the behest of the father of Samita Sharma. Reply has been filed by respondents No.4 & 5 (the parents of Samita Sharma) in CRM No.M-6835 of 2011 stating therein that their daughter is minor and that she was taken away forcibly without her consent. During the course of the proceedings, this court summoned Samita Sharma from Nari Niketan to ascertain her wishes. The court also felt concerned with the fact that the arrangement of keeping Samita Sharma in Nari Niketan was merely an interim arrangement and could not be perpetuated as in the event of her expressing a desire to go with Paras Sharma it would be grossly inappropriate to detain petitioner No.1 – Samita Sharma against her wishes. Samita Sharma has in categorical term unequivocally stated that she wishes to go with Paras Sharma and does not wish to go with her parents. The parents of Paras Sharma are also present in court as they were present on the previous date of hearing as well. In order to resolve the dispute, the court had communicated with them also. They have stated that they are happy with the arrangement of marriage of their son with Samita Sharma and are willing to accept her as daughter-in-law and that to ensure safety and security for her life they CRM No.M-6835 of 2011 (O&M) -3- are also willing to part with half of the share of their property in her favour. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Lila Gupta versus Laxmi Narain and others reported as AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1351 observed as follows: “A marriage contracted in contravention of or violation of the proviso to Section 15 is not void but merely invalid not affecting the core of marriage and the parties are subject to a binding tie of wedlock flowing from the marriage. Even though the proviso is couched in a language prohibiting a certain thing being done, that by itself is not sufficient to treat the marriage contracted in contravention of it as void. A mere glance at Section 15 of the Act and Section 57 of the Indian Divorce Act would clearly show that the provisions are not in pari materia. The relevant provisions are so materially different, that the decisions interpreting Section 57 cannot be bodily followed to hold that the same consequences should follow if the proviso to Section 15 is contravened. Examining the matter from all possible angles and keeping in view the fact that the scheme of the Act provides for treating certain marriages void and simultaneously some marriages which are made punishable yet not void and no consequences having been provided for in respect of the marriage in contravention of the proviso to Section 15 it cannot be said that such marriage would be void.” Having regard to the aforesaid observations, even if it is accepted that petitioner No.1 – Samita Sharma is minor, the marriage cannot be considered as void. Likewise a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case titled as Neetu Singh vs. State, reported as 1999 (1) PLR (Delhi) 47 observed that even a minor girl cannot be kept in protective homes against her wishes and the marriage of a minor girl is CRM No.M-6835 of 2011 (O&M) -4- neither void nor voidable but can attract punishment under Section 18 (5) of Hindu Marriage Act. Likewise a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Smt. Raj Kumari versus Superintendent, Women Protection House, Meerut and others, 1998 Crl, L.J. 654 observed similarly to say that a minor girl cannot be detained against her wishes. Having regard to the aforesaid observations and also the categoric statement that minor girl made before this court there is little hesitation to say that the said minor girl Samita Sharma is at liberty to go with Paras Sharma with whom she has contracted a marriage. Accordingly, this court directs that she be released from Nari Niketan forthwith and she is thus, permitted to go with Paras Sharma and his parents who are present in Court. In so far as the CRM No.M-7814 of 2011, is concerned, having regard to the fact that prima facie the petitioners Paras Sharma and Samita Sharma, the girl alleged to have been abducted, have stated before this Court that they have got married against the wishes of their parents, I am of the opinion that FIR No.25 dated 28.02.2011 registered at Police Station Cantt. Ferozepur, Distt. Ferozepur and all other consequent proceedings are unsustainable. Purely in the interest of justice, the said proceedings are directed to be quashed. Both the petitions are thus, allowed. July 12, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) sonia Judge