<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash proceedings under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act against a man, his parents and in-laws.</p>.<p>"The law protects childhood, so that it may blossom into informed adulthood. This court will not permit this protection to be diminished," Justice M Nagaprasanna said in his order.</p>.<p>In August 2021, the Child Development Project Officer, Devanahalli taluk, filed a suo motu complaint reporting a child marriage.</p>.<p>The complaint said the parents had married off their daughter, aged 16 (now 20), to a man who was 27 at the time. The court took cognizance of the police charge sheet.</p>.Assault case: Karnataka High Court orders fresh probe as accused is juvenile.<p>The petitioners submitted that the marriage had taken place during Covid-19 and they wanted to get the daughter married, fearing the pandemic would take away lives.</p>.<p>They further submitted that the marriage was registered when the girl turned 18, and that they were ignorant of the law at that time.</p>.<p>The court noted that sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, against the solemnisation and perpetuation of child marriage, are not merely penal provisions, but legislative declarations that childhood shall not be prematurely surrendered at the altar of matrimony.</p>.<p>"In the case at hand, it stands admitted that the girl was 16 years of age at the time of marriage. The statutory definition leaves no room for interpretative elasticity. The marriage, therefore, answers squarely to the description of child marriage," the court said.</p>.<p>The court further noted that as per Section 10, whoever performs, conducts, directs or abets a child marriage becomes equally liable.</p>.<p>"The priest who solemnises the ceremony, the relative who arranges it, the organiser who facilitates it, all stand within the sweep of this provision. The punishment prescribed is again a rigorous imprisonment, which may extend up to 2 years," Justice Nagaprasanna said.</p>.<p>"The only statutory escape is a demonstrable and reasonable belief that the marriage was not a child marriage, a defence which will have to be established by evidence and not presumed by sympathy, as projected in the case at hand."</p>.Karnataka High Court hikes relief to woman accident victim's kin.<p>"A girl married before 18 does not merely enter matrimony; she exits opportunity. The promise of education fades into abstraction. The dream of academic or professional advancement remains precisely that, a dream," the court further said.</p>.<p>"The submission that the couple is presently living in harmony does not efface the illegality committed at the time of solemnisation. Criminal liability is measured now of commission, not neutralised by the subsequent domestic peace. To accept otherwise would be to convert penal law into a matter of retrospective validation through sentiment."</p>.<p>"... Child Development Project officers shall ensure that awareness of criminal liability is displayed at every venue where marriages are ordinarily performed. Temple authorities, marriage halls, and similar establishments shall display notices, stating that marriage of a person below the 18 years of age is prohibited by law and attracts criminal consequences," Justice M Nagaprasanna.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash proceedings under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act against a man, his parents and in-laws.</p>.<p>"The law protects childhood, so that it may blossom into informed adulthood. This court will not permit this protection to be diminished," Justice M Nagaprasanna said in his order.</p>.<p>In August 2021, the Child Development Project Officer, Devanahalli taluk, filed a suo motu complaint reporting a child marriage.</p>.<p>The complaint said the parents had married off their daughter, aged 16 (now 20), to a man who was 27 at the time. The court took cognizance of the police charge sheet.</p>.Assault case: Karnataka High Court orders fresh probe as accused is juvenile.<p>The petitioners submitted that the marriage had taken place during Covid-19 and they wanted to get the daughter married, fearing the pandemic would take away lives.</p>.<p>They further submitted that the marriage was registered when the girl turned 18, and that they were ignorant of the law at that time.</p>.<p>The court noted that sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, against the solemnisation and perpetuation of child marriage, are not merely penal provisions, but legislative declarations that childhood shall not be prematurely surrendered at the altar of matrimony.</p>.<p>"In the case at hand, it stands admitted that the girl was 16 years of age at the time of marriage. The statutory definition leaves no room for interpretative elasticity. The marriage, therefore, answers squarely to the description of child marriage," the court said.</p>.<p>The court further noted that as per Section 10, whoever performs, conducts, directs or abets a child marriage becomes equally liable.</p>.<p>"The priest who solemnises the ceremony, the relative who arranges it, the organiser who facilitates it, all stand within the sweep of this provision. The punishment prescribed is again a rigorous imprisonment, which may extend up to 2 years," Justice Nagaprasanna said.</p>.<p>"The only statutory escape is a demonstrable and reasonable belief that the marriage was not a child marriage, a defence which will have to be established by evidence and not presumed by sympathy, as projected in the case at hand."</p>.Karnataka High Court hikes relief to woman accident victim's kin.<p>"A girl married before 18 does not merely enter matrimony; she exits opportunity. The promise of education fades into abstraction. The dream of academic or professional advancement remains precisely that, a dream," the court further said.</p>.<p>"The submission that the couple is presently living in harmony does not efface the illegality committed at the time of solemnisation. Criminal liability is measured now of commission, not neutralised by the subsequent domestic peace. To accept otherwise would be to convert penal law into a matter of retrospective validation through sentiment."</p>.<p>"... Child Development Project officers shall ensure that awareness of criminal liability is displayed at every venue where marriages are ordinarily performed. Temple authorities, marriage halls, and similar establishments shall display notices, stating that marriage of a person below the 18 years of age is prohibited by law and attracts criminal consequences," Justice M Nagaprasanna.</p>