Criminal Misc. No. M- 9508 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 9508 of 2011 Date of decision:- 31.5.2011 Manvi and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG Punjab for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Sandeep Wadhawan, Advocate for respondent No.4. RITU BAHRI J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for issuing directions to official respondents not to harass and disturb the peaceful married life of the petitioners at the instance of private respondent. As per affidavit (Annexure P-1) the age of petitioner No.1-Manvi is less than 18 years. It is contended that her date of birth was wrongly recorded by her parents and she is more than 18 years of age and her correct date of birth is 17.02.1993. Mr. Sandeep Wadhawan, counsel for respondent No.4 submits that as per Matriculation Examination Certificate (Annexure P-1) age of the girl is 16 years and 3 months. The parents of the girl have lodged an FIR No.84 dated 26.3.2011 under Sections 363,366 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar City. After lodging of this FIR the marriage was solemnized Criminal Misc. No. M- 9508 of 2011 -2- on 27.3.2011. On 20.5.2011 petitioner No.1-Manvi was sent to the Nari Niketan and both the parties were directed to appear before the Mediation Center on 24.5.2011. Today when the matter was taken up counsel for the parties stated that there is no amicable settlement of the issue. On query by this Court, petitioner No.1-Manvi flatly refused to go back with her parents. Mr. Sandeep Wadhawan, counsel for respondent No.4 has sought a direction that she should be sent to Nari Niketan as she is below 18 years of age. In Sh. Jitender Kumar Sharma versus State and another 2010(4) RCR (Civil) 59 and Amninder Kaur and another versus State of Punjab and others 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 261 it is held that the marriage between a major boy and minor girl is not void or invalid. As per Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the marriage is invalid because it is in violation of Section 5(iii) of the Act, which is reproduced below :- “5. Conditions of a Hindu marriage.-- A marriage may solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely :- (i) XXX XXX XXX (ii) XXX XXX XXX (iii) the bridegroom has completed the age of twenty-one years and the bride the age of eighteen years at the time of the marriage; (iv) XXX XXX XXX (v) XXX XXX XXX And examination of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act such a marriage would be null and void if it contravenes any one of the conditions specified in clauses of Section 5 of the Act. As per Section 18 of the Act, the punishment prescribed for such a violation is may extend to two years of rigorous imprisonment or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with both. The legislature has not intended to mean that marriage in contravention of Section 5(iii) of the Act is void. As per Section 6 of the Guardians and Wards Act Criminal Misc. No. M- 9508 of 2011 -3- 1890 the natural guardian of a married girl is the husband. As per Section 13 of the Act welfare of minor to be paramount consideration for appointing a guardian of a Hindu minor. Even a husband, who is minor, can be a guardian of a minor wife. In the present case, petitioner No.1-Manvi has refused to go with her parents. In view of the above, it is directed that Manvi is no longer required to be taken in the Nari Niketan. She is free to go with her husband-Binny. The respondents shall not harass the couple. However, they are at liberty to pursue with the remedy initiated in the FIR. The criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of. 31.5.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE