Him-1 cougar qggHHATwscsam—i Amjggww Hon'bie Shri Vijay Kumar Shrivasfava (8‘ Hon’bie Sim Bhirendm Mishm, JJ. Comm :- ROQP NARAYAN VERMA Vs. UMON OF INDIA & OTH§RS w§ FOR camszDERATmN k . ‘ . Sdl-, V.K.Shrivastava Judge r ‘J * (emmmzaa? " ‘ a?“ ‘ M Hon’ble 5hri Dhirendrd MishmA J f“‘xk‘qa 1‘! W Sd/— ‘ x DHIRENDRA MISHRA ‘ " Judge F’OST FGR GRDER 6N 1% JANUIKéfig§§i Sdl V.K. Shrivastaya Judge ‘imew‘a’é? ¥ ‘ — A” i HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Comm :- Hon'ble Shri ViJay Kumar' Shrivus‘rava & Hon'ble Shri Dhirendm Mishm, JJ'. Wri'i' Pe‘l'ifion No. 2621 af 2G03 Pe‘mioner: Roop Narayan Varma Son of Lure Ghanshyam Verma, aged abauf 4O years, residenf of Ciubpar-a, Ward No.19 Police Stufion, Tehsil and District Mahasamund (C5) Versus Respondents: 1. Union of India through “the Secre’rar-y Minisfr'y of Law, New Delhi 2. S‘rafe of chhuffisgarh, Thraugh fhe Principle Secrefar'y, DKS Bhavan, Ruipur' (CG) 3. Chifr’arekha Var-ma, D/o Shri Neelkanfh Verma, aged ubou'i 36 year's, R/o Viiiage - Eoriakala, PS Abhanpur, PO Dumfar'ai, Tehsil And Disiriici‘ Raipur Presenf :- shri‘ 8P Shawna, counsei for ihe pe‘i‘i‘iioner. 5hri Bhishma Kinger, sfanding Counsel for respondent No.1 / Union of India 5hri Prashonf Mishm, Addifionoi Advoco‘ie Generoi for respondeni No.2/Sfa‘ie. Shri PP Sahu( counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (passed on 11:01.2007) The following order of fhe Cour? was delivered by Vijay Kumar Shrivosfova, J : This i5 jihe pefii‘ion under Article 226/227 of fhe Consiifui-ion of < India, for ihe following reliefs : i i 7 l ‘ 1) A wrif and /or an order in fhe nature of writ of mandamus do issue commanding and direcfing fhe responden‘r Stow au‘rhori‘ries 1'0 produce ail ‘rhe reievam files, documems and records e‘rc 1‘0 shew fhe snps iaken by them for prevenfing fhe child marriages in The country and in *he 51'a‘l‘e of Chhamsgarh. 2) A wrif and/or an order in fhe nafure of wrif of mandamus do issue commanding and direciing fhe responden‘rs $1'a1'e i au'rhorii'ies a‘o effec‘l'iveiy impiemen? The provision of Chiid Marriage Resfraini Act 1929 ail over line area wi‘rhin fheir. jurisdiction and for that prepare a scheme and establish agency for reslraining 1‘l1e said marriages. : A writ and / or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate naiure do issue declaring 1'he Seclion 13(2) (iv) of ihe Hindu Marriage Act 1955 is uli'ra vires to ‘the Ari’icie 15 of The Consiii‘ui'ion of India. 3) A writ and/or an order in ihe naiure of wrii' of cer‘iiorari do issue quashing fhe impugned order daied 04—07-2003 (Annexure P—4) in +he fad-s and ciroums'rances of The case ‘since the respondent 3tate. authorities have failed to discharge i'heir du‘iies for restraining the child marriages—oi ihe relevani fime and which has given rise ihe dispufe befween i’he pefi‘rioner and respondeni' No.3 and Therefore, pay To ihe respondent No.3 the amomlintenance as ordered by the Court below. ' ‘ i l 2) Pe’ri‘l‘ioner' and responden‘r No3 are Hindus~by rdigion. When pefifioner' was abom 7 years and respondenf No.3 was abouf 4 yews, fhey had been fied wifh wedlack on 21.04.1969 af village Boriakaia, Tehsii and Disfricf Raipur‘. AfTer a lapse of around 23 year-s from fhe dafe of marriage, respcndenf No.3 filed an applicafion on 06.07.1992 againsf fhe pe'lrifioner' claiming maintenance of Rs.1000/— per- mani‘h, before fine Cour? of Judicial Magisi'rcn‘e, 15‘ Class, Raipur under Seci‘ion 125 of The Cr.P.C. (henceforih “fhe code“). Pei'i’rioner confesi‘ed it on various ground infer a/iq wifh fhe specific ground “ll-mi fhe marriage was no‘r solemnized in accordace wiih the manda'i'ory provisions of Secfion 5 of flue Hindu Marriage Aci' 1955 (henceforth " The Ac‘l‘ 1955”), and if is againsi‘ ihe provisions of Child Marriage Resfraini‘ Acf 1929 (hencefori‘h “ihe Ac‘i 1929“). Learned Magisi‘ra're, offer enquiry and hearing 1'0 The parfiesl passed an order on 06.07.2002 and +hereby direcied fhe peiifioner To make paymeni of amoun'i' of Rs.750/- per mom‘h 1'0 responden‘i‘ No.3 Towards her main‘renanae. Feeling aggrieved, pefifioner preferred a Criminal Revision bearing No.315/2002. Learned 4’“ Addi'rionai Sessions Judge Raipur exercising revisional jurisdicfion af’rer hearing fhe par‘ries, dismissed i‘he revision vide order daied 04972002. 3) Bofh fhose orders are ‘ihe roof cause for compelling i'he pe‘i'i'i'ioner fa insi'ifui‘e 'i'his pe‘i‘i‘iion, who averred fha‘r so for crii‘eria of age as prescribed under Secfion 5 of fhe Acf 1955, pefifioner and responden’r No.3 were na’r wifhin ‘ihe age group; i'herefore, bofh of ‘ihem did nof acquire any legal enforceable obligafion towards each ofher. The Ac? 1929 also prescribes age group; below fhai' age group, There is a prohibifion of marriage, pe‘rifioner and responden‘i- No_3 were beloww’group: Therefore, fheir e marriage was also hi1- by The provisians of Acf 1929. Sfafe au‘rhor-ifies had an obligm‘ion To resfr‘ain The solemniza+ion of child marriage and To give effec1' ‘ro fhe provisicns of Ac+ 1929, bu‘r, fhey uffer-ly failed 1-0 discharge fheir‘ dufies; had fhe Sfa‘re Au‘l‘horifies fook effecfive sfeps for prohibifion a'f Child marriage, pe‘l‘ifioner would‘have been saved from marrying respondenf No.3. Even lafches an fhe par? of Sfai'e aui‘horifies allowed so many couples 1‘0 live even afier a marriage fie fha‘r is in confravenfion of The AcT 1929. In accordance wiTh The provisions in SecTion 13 (2) (iv) of The AcT 1955, wife, who conTracTed The marriage under The age of 15 years has been permiTTed To repudiafe her marriage wheTher consummaTed or noT afTer aTTaining The age of 15 years, buT husband has noT been allowed such a righT To repudiaTe The marriage. This discriminaTion on The ground of sex has been made beTween The peTiTioner and respondenT No.3 and such discrimination is noT permissible wiThin The scope of ArTicle 15 of The ConsTiTuTion of India. 4) From The facTs, sTaTed above and The relief prayed for, iTs conspicuous, ThaT in a single peTiTion peTiTioner has claimed The reliefs firsTly i.e. againsT his wife, secondly againsT The STaTe auThoriTies and Thirdly againsT Law makers. For The firsT relief, peTiTioner has righT To challenge The orders passed by The Judicial MagisTraTe 1“ Class and The AddiTional Sessions Judge for which independenT cause of acTion arose. Second relief is in The naTure of public inTeresT i.e. againsT STaTe auThoriTies for noT performing obligaTions in appropriaTe manner for which Time To Time as and when STaTe AuThoriTies did noT perform Their duTies in accordance wiTh law cause of acTion arose and Thirdly cause of acTion arose when SecTion 13 (2) (iv)rof The AcT 1955 came inTo‘exisTence. All The reliefs are disTincT and for Those reliefs, HigLCourT is required To invoke iTs disfincf jurisdicfion i.e. provided in accordance wifh Criminal law, Marriage law and Consfi‘iufion. We are afraid To aécepf Thai- such a jumbled reliefs could be sough? by a single pe‘rifion. 5) Learned counsel for ‘l‘he peii‘lianer contended fhal' while incorporai‘ing amendmenf in fhe Acf 1955 by marriage law amendmen‘l' Ac? and providing following amendmen’rs, discriminafion has been caused, and ihai being ihe discriminafion on fhe ground of sex, cannoi' be allowed 1'0 remain in fhe sfaiufe. “Seciion 13 (2) (iv) A wife may also presenf a pe‘i'ifion for fhe dissolu‘l'ion of her marriage by a decree of divorce on fhe ground :- (iv) fha‘l her; marriage (whe‘iher consummafed or not) was solemnized before she affained fhe age of 15 years and she has repudia+ed fhe marriage uffer affaining ‘l'hai' age bu‘l' before a‘l‘l'aining fhe age of eigh‘l'een years. Explanaiion :- fhis clause applies wheiher fhe marriage was solemnized before or offer fhe commencemenf of fhe Marriage laws (Amendmen‘l') Ad, 1976 (68 of 1976)" 6) On fhe oppugna‘l‘ion, learned counsel for ‘l‘he opposi‘l'e side confended fha‘l‘ Ar‘l'icle 15 (3) of fhe Cons‘l'ii‘u‘iion of India ifself promo‘l'es To enact such a provision. Therefore, The amendmenf does nof suffer from any vires. Arficle 15 (3) of fhe Consfi‘lufion of India reads as below — ”(3) Nofhing in This arficle shall preven‘l' The Sfa'l'e from making any special provision for women and children.” 7) Hon’ble Apex Cour'l' in the ma'l'i'ers of 1 Prafap Singh Vs Union of India and ofhers, 2Toguru Sudhakar Reddy agd anofher Vs The 1 AIR 1985 SCC 1695 2 AIR 1994 SC 544 Governmenf of Andhra Pradesh and ofhers & 3Govemmen1' of Andhra Pradesh Vs PS Vijay Kumar and ano'l'her also approved Sfafe compemnce ‘I'o make special provisions for women. In The insfanf case, for fhe benefi'r of women, special provisions have been enac‘red and those provisions squarely covered wifhin fhe scope of Ar‘Hcle 15 (3) of fhe Cons’ril'uiion of India. Therefore, fhe whole amendmeni is legal and no‘l‘ uli‘ra vireé. 8) Learned counsel for ihe pefi‘l‘ioner con‘l‘ended fhaf The Ac'l 1929 prohibii's marriage below fhe prescribed age, and when pefifioner and respondent No.3 were married, a? fhdf Time, fhe age group was 18 and 15. Pefifioner was below 18 years and respondeni No.3 was below 15 years.‘ Had fhe Sfa'ie au'ihorifies prevenied ihe marriage, fhe pefiiioner would no? have been compelled now, To pay moinfenanee 'io respondeni No.3)sef apart, segmenf of fhe prohibifed marriage would nai- have been faced consequences of child marriage. On fhe o‘iher hand, learned counsel for fhe Sfa‘l‘e sdbmifs fha'l fhe Ac‘i 1929 prescribes modes for injunc‘l'ion, faking cognizance of offence, making repori- punishmen'l' efc., and Sfafe au‘ihori'l'ies are bound To implemeni‘ Those provisions in accordance wifh law. Sfafe aui'horifies willfully did no'i- allow child marriages 1‘0 be performed. Pe‘ri‘l‘ioner failed ‘i‘o demonsiriafe insfances where, despi'ie any person being approached The 5TaTe auThoriTies, They willfully dis-obeying The law denied redressal 1'0 him. No doubT, This is a social enacTmenT and non-compliance of The some gives rise To a number of evils, Therefore, if, for wanT of sufficienT provisions in The enacTmenT, STaTe is unable To check The evil, STaTe should ensure To come Through iT by appropriaTeJegislaTion, griby making oTher legal devices. 3 AIR 1995 SOC 1648 7 9‘ 9) Learned counsel for fhe petifiouer furfher' confended fhaf he was married f0 respandenf No.3 in viola‘tion of fhe Ac‘l‘ 1955 and 1929; Therefore, he can nof be compelled fo pay mainfenance and if is fhe Sfafe who should maimain respondenf No.3. On fhe ofher hand, i1- is confended by fhe Smfe Thu? iill marriage is valid and requirements for providing maim‘enance as envisaged under Sec'rion 125 of 1'he "Code" exisfs, pe‘l'ifioner is bound io pay main‘i‘enance and fhe 51‘a1'e can no‘i be direc‘ied 'ro mainfain pefiiioner’s wife. Pei’i'i'ioner, who did no? Take core for so many years when asked fo mainfain his wife by legal order by legal forum, has approached This CourT To escape iT ThaT Too on Those ground' which are noT available To him for avoiding paymenf of mainTenance To his own wife. 10) Learned counsel for The peTiTioner relying on judgmen‘l‘ rendered in 4 M5 Grewal and Another Vs Deep Chand Sood And OTher-s contended ThaT CourTs have social obligaTion To respond The need of people, but in The insTanT case by inacTion of The STaTe social reforms are disrupTed. Therefore, CourT musT invoke iTs jurisdic‘l'ion by sTepping in ArTicle 226 of The ConsTiTuTion of India. On The oTher hand, if is conTended ThoT The said case law does noT cover The preSenT case. We have gone Through iT. We do noT'vfind any exigency involved in The insTanT case, so as To require This CourT To sTep in under ArTicle 226 of The ConsTiTuTion for issuing any direcTion. 11) In The resulT, The peTiTion being devoid of meriT, iT is liable To be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed. No cosTs. i/z: l n 1 ‘l sdl— i. V.K.Shrivastava / l l i ‘ Judge J MISHM Sdl- l , numENDRA fl- :1‘ Judge padrna 4 (2001)8 sco 151