Karnataka High Court
Sri. Manjunatha. N vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14634
CRL.P No. 1605 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1605 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MANJUNATHA N.,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
S/O NARAYANASWAMY
2. SRI NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O LATE MARIYAPPA
3. SMT. GAYATHRAMMA @ GAYATHRI,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
W/O NARAYANASWAMY
Digitally signed
by SANJEEVINI SL.NO.1 TO 3 ARE
J KARISHETTY
RESIDING AT NO. 63,
Location: High
Court of SHARAB MUNISHAMAPPA LAYOUT,
Karnataka
HOSAKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 562 114.
4. SRI MANJUNATHA.B.S,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O LATE B.T. SRINIVAS
5. SMT. MANJULA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
W/O MANJUNATHA.B.S
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:14634
CRL.P No. 1605 of 2026
HC-KAR
SL.NO.4 TO 5 ARE
RESIDING AT NO. 27,
BULLAHALLI VILLAGE,
HAROHALLI POST,
VIJAYAPURA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 562 135.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SADAKATH U.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH CHANNARAYAPATANA
POLICE STATION
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 135.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B N JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ALL PROCEEDINGS (I.E.,
COMPLAINT, FIR CHARGE SHEET FURTHER PROCEEDINGS) IN
C.C.N O.4782/2022 BEFORE ACJ AND JMFC DEVANAHALLI IN
CRIME NO.61/2022 CHANNARAYAPATNA POLICE STATION
DEVANAHALLI TALUK, SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS HEREIN
ARE CONCERNED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 9, 10
AND 11 OF THE PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT 2026.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:14634
CRL.P No. 1605 of 2026
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 5 are before the Court
calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.4782 of 2022
pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli
arising out of crime in Crime No.61 of 2021 registered for
offences punishable under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (‘the Act’ for short).
2. Heard Sri U. Sadakath, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners and Sri B. N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional
State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: –
The petitioners are accused 1 to 5 and complainant is the
State. It is a suo motu complaint by the State through the Child
Development Project Officer, Devanahalli Taluk on 09-08-2021.
It is the case of the prosecution in the complaint that 1st
petitioner/accused No.1 had performed the marriage with a
minor by name Rakshitha, daughter of petitioners 4 and
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:14634
CRL.P No. 1605 of 2026HC-KAR
5/accused No.2 and 4. On the said complaint investigation is
conducted, which revealed that the daughter of petitioners 4
and 5 was given in marriage to accused No.1, who was of 27
years old at the said point in time and the girl was 16 years old
and today the girl is 20 years old. On the said investigation, the
jurisdictional police filed a charge sheet. The concerned Court
takes cognizance of the offence and registers Criminal Case
No.4782 of 2022 against the petitioners. Further proceedings
are in progress and the matter is at the stage of hearing before
charge. At this juncture, the petitioners have approached this
Court, in the subject petition, calling in question the said
proceedings.
SUBMISSIONS:
PETITIONERS:
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
would vehemently contend that the parents of the 1st accused
and the victim are innocent. They were ignorant of law and its
consequences. When COVID-19 had engulfed the globe, they
wanted to get the daughter married fearing that the pandemic
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:14634
CRL.P No. 1605 of 2026
HC-KAR
would take away the lives. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact
that the daughter was 16 years old at the time of marriage,
they got the marriage performed with accused No.1, who was
27 years old at that point in time. The learned counsel would
submit that the husband and the wife are living happily, and
the marriage is registered after the girl turned 18 years and
there are no overt acts committed by any of the persons. The
trial undoubtedly will end in acquittal. On these submissions,
the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that this
Court may not permit further trial to be conducted for an
eventual acquittal. He would seek quashment of proceedings.
STATE:
5. Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
Sri B N Jagadeesha would refute the submissions by contending
that it is an admitted fact that the girl at the time of marriage
was 16 years of age and the boy was 27 years of age. The girl
could not have been given in marriage by the parents, when
she was a minor. Therefore, admitted facts themselves would
reveal that there is enough material to proceed against the
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:14634
CRL.P No. 1605 of 2026HC-KAR
accused. He would submit that since the matter is at the stage
of hearing before charge, this Court should not interfere in the
exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have
perused the material on record.
CONSIDERATION:
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute, as they are
all a matter of record, they are in fact admitted facts. Marriage
takes place between accused No.1 and the daughter of accused
Nos.2 and 4 on 30-08-2021, at which point in time the girl was
16 years old and the boy/accused No.1 was 27 years old. The
other accused are parents of the victim and other members of
the family, who sat together and performed the marriage at
Sri Thabblingeshwara Temple, Bullahalli Village, Devenahalli
Taluk. Based upon the said incident of marriage, which took
place on 30-08-2021 a complaint is made to the jurisdictional
police by the Child Development Project Officer immediately on
09-08-2021. The complaint reads as follows:
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:14634
CRL.P No. 1605 of 2026HC-KAR
“ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಸ ಾ ರ
(ಮ ಾ ಮತು ಮಕ ಳ ಅ ವೃ ಇ ಾ ೆ)
ಹ ೇ ಾಲೂ!ಕು ಕ”ೇ# ಕಟ$ಡ, & & ರ’ೆ, (ೇವನಹ*+ -562110, ದೂರ-ಾ. ಸಂ ೆ1:080-
29565103ಸಂ ೆ1: 2ಅ3ೕ/(ೇ/4ಾ5/2021-22 ಾಂಕ:09-08-2021
ರವ#6ೆ
ಆರ8ಕ 9#ೕ8ಕರು
ಚನ;<ಾಯಪಟ$ಣ @ೕAB CಾDೆ
(ೇವನಹ*+ ಾಲೂ!ಕು.
Eಾನ1<ೇ,
5ಷಯ: 4ಾಲ15-ಾಹ ನGೆ ರುವ ಬ6ೆI ದೂರು 9ೕಡುJರುವ ಕು#ತು.
*****
Kೕಲ ಂಡ 5ಷಯ ೆ ಸಂಬಂLMದಂ ೆ ಚನ;<ಾಯಪಟ$ಣ Nೋಬ*, ಗಂ6ಾ-ಾರ
6ಾPಮದ 2Pೕ ತಂಬೂAಂ6ೇಶRರ (ೇವ’ಾSನದA! ಾಂಕ: 30-8-2021 ರಂದು
ಕು।। ರTತ.&.ಎಂ &V ಮಂಜು ಾX ಎಂಬ (07/09/2005) 16 ವಷ ದ 4ಾಲY Nಾಗೂ 2Pೕ
ಮಂಜು ಾX &V ಾ<ಾಯಣ’ಾRZ, 27 ವಷ ಶರಬ ಮು9ಶ1ಮಯ1 ಬಡ-ಾDೆ,
ಇಂ[\ಾV ಆ]^ _ೆ`ೊPೕ^ ಬಂa ಹJರ Nೊಸ ೋ`ೆ, 4ೆಂಗಳbರು 6ಾPEಾಂತರ c ೆ!
ಎಂಬುವರ dೊ ೆ 4ಾಲ1 5-ಾಹ Eಾ[ರು ಾ<ೆ. ಈ 4ಾಲ1 5-ಾಹ ೆ ಪf<ೋ ತರು,
ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಸದಸ1<ಾದ 4ಾಲYಯ @ೕಷಕರು Nಾಗೂ ಹುಡುಗನ @ೕಷಕರು ಮದು-ೆಯA!
gಾh\ಾhರು ಾ<ೆ. ಸದ# Eಾ Jಯನು; 4ಾಲ1 5-ಾಹ 9iೇಧ ಾklಯ[ಯA! ಪPಕರಣ
(ಾಖಲು Eಾ[ ೊಳ+ಲು ೋ#(ೆ.
ಲಗತು: (1) 4ಾಲYಯ ವಯMnನ ದೃoೕಕರಣ
(2) ಮದು-ೆ6ೆ ಸಂಬಂLMದ “ಾ\ಾpತPಗಳqತಮr 5sಾRM
¸À»/-
2ಶು ಅ ವೃ 3ೕಜ ಾL ಾ#ಗಳq
(ೇವನಹ*+ ಾಲೂ!ಕು”
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:14634
CRL.P No. 1605 of 2026HC-KAR
The complaint then becomes a crime in Crime No.61 of 2021
for offences punishable under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Act.
The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. The
summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in Column No.17
reads as follows:
“17. ೇMನ ಸಂTಪ ‘ಾ<ಾಂಶ
ಾಂಕ 30.08.2021 ರಂದು 4ೆ*6ೆI 05.00 ಗಂ`ೆಯA! ಘನ ಾ1\ಾಲಯದ -ಾ1v6ೆ
‘ೇ#ದ pನ;<ಾಯಪಟ$ಣ @AೕB CಾDಾ ಸರಹದುl, ಗಂಗ-ಾರ wೌಡಪyನಹ*+ 6ಾPಮದ 2Pೕ
ತಬzAಂ6ೇಶRರ (ೇವ’ಾSನA! ಎ1 #ಂದ ಎ6 ಆ<ೋvಗಳq ‘ಾT 02 ರವ#6ೆ ಎ1
ರವ<ೊಂ 6ೆ ಮದು-ೆ Eಾ[Mದುl, ‘ಾT 02 ರವರ ಜನr ಾಂಕ 07/09/2005 ಆhದುl,
ಅ_ಾPಪ 4ಾಲY\ಾhರು ಾ<ೆ. ‘ಾT 02 ರವರು ಅ_ಾPಪ 4ಾಲY ಎಂದು J*ದು ಸNಾ ಎ1
#ಂದ ಎ6 ವ<ೆhನ ಆ<ೋvಗಳq ‘ೇ# ಎ1 ಆ<ೋv3ಂ 6ೆ ‘ಾT 02 ರವರನು; 4ಾಲ1
5-ಾಹವನು; Eಾ[Mರುವfದು ತ9 ೆ]ಂದ ದೃಢಪ|$ರುತ(ೆ.
ಆದl#ಂದ Kೕಲ ಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳ #ೕತ1 ಆ<ೋvತರ Kೕ ೆ ಹೂ#ಸಲyಟ$ (ೋiಾ<ೋಪಣ
ಪ|$.”
Further proceedings are in progress. The matter is at the stage
of hearing before charge.
8. On these admitted facts, whether further proceedings
should be permitted to be continued or to be obliterated, on the
score that the accused were ignorant of law and accused No.1
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:14634
CRL.P No. 1605 of 2026
HC-KAR
and the victim are living happily? The answer would be, an
unequivocal and an emphatic ‘no’.
STATUTORY MANDATE:
9. The offence that is alleged is the one punishable under
Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Act. They read as follows:
“9. Punishment for male adult marrying a
child.–Whoever, being a male adult above eighteen
years of age, contracts a child marriage shall be
punishable with rigorous imprisonment which may
extend to two years or with fine which may extend to one
lakh rupees or with both.
10. Punishment for solemnising a child
marriage.–Whoever performs, conducts, directs or
abets any child marriage shall be punishable with
rigorous imprisonment which may extend to two years
and shall be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh
rupees unless he proves that he had reasons to believe
that the marriage was not a child marriage.
11. Punishment for promoting or permitting
solemnisation of child marriages.–(1) Where a child
contracts a child marriage, any person having
charge of the child, whether as parent or guardian
or any other person or in any other capacity, lawful
or unlawful, including any member of an
organisation or association of persons who does
any act to promote the marriage or permits it to be
solemnised, or negligently fails to prevent it from
being solemnised, including attending or
participating in a child marriage, shall be
punishable with rigorous imprisonment which may
extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine which
may extend up to one lakh rupees:
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14634
CRL.P No. 1605 of 2026HC-KAR
Provided that no woman shall be punishable with
imprisonment.
(2) For the purposes of this section, it shall be
presumed, unless and until the contrary is proved, that
where a minor child has contracted a marriage, the
person having charge of such minor child has negligently
failed to prevent the marriage from being solemnised.”
9.1. Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Act form the
statutory bulwark against the solemnisation and
perpetuation of child marriage. They are not merely
penal provisions, they are legislative declarations that
childhood shall not be prematurely surrendered at the
altar of matrimony. Section 9 addresses the principal
protogonist – the adult male. It mandates that any male adult
above 18 years of age, who contracts a child marriage shall be
liable to rigorous imprisonment which may extend to 2 years or
fine. The offence is complete upon the act of contracting
marriage with a child. The statute does not condition culpability
upon intention beyond the knowledge of age.
9.2. The expression ‘child marriage’ is defined under
Section 2B, as a marriage to which either of the contracting
parties is a child. A ‘minor’ under Section 2F is a person who
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14634
CRL.P No. 1605 of 2026
HC-KAR
has not attained majority within the meaning of the majority
Act. 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.
9.3. Section 10 widens the net of culpability. It
does not confine responsibility to the contracting adult,
but upon whoever performs, conducts, directs or abets a
child marriage becomes equally liable. The priest who
solemnises the ceremony, the relative who arranges it,
the organizer 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. 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.
9.4. Section 11 is the statute’s vigilant sentinel. It
penalises those who promote, permit or negligently fail
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14634
CRL.P No. 1605 of 2026
HC-KAR
to prevent the solemnisation of child marriage. The reach
of this provision is intentionally expansive. It
encompasses parents, guardians, persons having lawful
or even unlawful charge of the child, and members of
organizations or associations. The provision recognises that
child marriage is seldom the act of a single individual, it is often
enabled by collective participation.
9.5. Sub-section 2 of Section 11 introduces a significant
legal presumption, where a minor child has contracted a
marriage, it shall be presumed unless to the contrary proved,
that the person having charge of the child, has negligently
failed to prevent the marriage. This reverse burden reflects the
legislative intent to shield children from exploitation. Section
11, thus operates as a ‘catch-all’ safeguard.
9.6. Collectively read, these provisions manifest clear
legislative intent. Child marriage is not a private family
engagement beyond scrutiny, but a social wrong,
demanding accountability at every level of participation.
The statute, therefore, stands not merely as a punitive
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14634
CRL.P No. 1605 of 2026
HC-KAR
measure, but as a declaration that rights of the child would
always outweigh the convenience of the custom.
10. Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Act has borne
consideration by a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court, in
SOCIETY FOR ENLIGHTENMENT AND VOLUNTARY
ACTION v. UNION OF INDIA1, considers the purport of the
afore-quoted provisions of the Act in the following paragraphs:
“…. …. ….
57. Section 10 of PCMA stipulates that a
person who performs, conducts, directs or abets
any child marriage shall be punished with rigorous
imprisonment which may extend to two years and
shall be liable to a fine which may extend to one
lakh rupees. The provision, unlike Section 9, does not
allow the court to choose the option of imposing a fine or
sentencing a term of imprisonment or both. A court
adjudicating under Section 10 is mandated to impose a
sentence of imprisonment as well as impose a fine.
58. The provision is expansive and would
govern any accomplice to the commission of child
marriage. This would include the priest who
performs the marriage, any family member, relative
or person at whose direction the marriage takes
place or anyone who abets it. The provision
stipulates a defence available to any accused under
Section 10 which is that a person must demonstrate
that he had reasonable belief that the marriage was
not a child marriage. The inbuilt defence stipulated
in the provision is to safeguard any person who
1
2024 SCC OnLine 2922
– 14 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14634
CRL.P No. 1605 of 2026
HC-KAR
may unwittingly become a part of the commission
of the offence of child marriage.
59. Section 11 of the PCMA is a catchall provision
against the promotion or permitting of child marriage by
those in charge of a minor party to the marriage. The
provision reads as follows:
“11. Punishment for promoting or
permitting solemnisation of child
marriages.–
(1) Where a child contracts a child
marriage, any person having charge of the child,
whether as parent or guardian or any other
person or in any other capacity, lawful or
unlawful, including any member of an
organisation or association of persons who does
any act to promote the marriage or permits it to
be solemnised, or negligently fails to prevent it
from being solemnised, including attending or
participating in a child marriage, shall be
punishable with rigorous imprisonment which
may extend to two years and shall also be liable
to fine which may extend up to one lakh rupees :
Provided that no woman shall be punishable with
imprisonment.
(2) For the purposes of this section, it
shall be presumed, unless and until the contrary
is proved, that where a minor child has
contracted a marriage, the person having charge
of such minor child has negligently failed to
prevent the marriage from being solemnised.”
60. Section 11 stipulates that any person
having charge of the child – who promotes or
permits a child marriage or fails to prevent it – is
liable to rigorous imprisonment which may extend
to two years and a fine which may extend to one
lakh rupees. Similar to the provision under Section 10 of
the PCMA, Section 11 also prescribes a mandate to the
sentencing court to impose a sentence of imprisonment
as well as a fine. The provision uses the word ‘and’
between the two punishments and the judge does not
have the liberty to pick a certain punishment to the
exclusion of the other. The person liable under Section
– 15 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14634
CRL.P No. 1605 of 2026
HC-KAR
11 may be the parents of the child or a guardian or
any other person or organisation. Further, the
means by which a person may have the charge of
the child is immaterial as the provision stipulates
that the charge may be ‘lawful or unlawful’. The
section seeks to penalise any person or
organisation involved in a child marriage. Its
expansive scope allows for the prosecution of any
person who may have unlawfully taken the custody
of a child and thereafter promoted, permitted or
failed to prevent the child marriage. Section 11 also
deals with organisations, such as orphanages or
schools or hostels, which may have the charge of a
child and under whose watch the child is married
off.
61. The intention of the provision is to place
an obligation on any person who has the charge of
a child to ensure that the offence of child marriage
is not committed. The provision not only penalises
the active participation of the person having charge
of a child but also penalises the omission on the
part of such a person to prevent child marriage. The
provision recognises that children lack the ability to
form intelligent consent and may not necessarily
know the full ambit of the activity which they are
about to commit. Further, children may lack the
ability and grit to defend themselves and refuse to
participate in the marriage against the pleasure of
their custodians or parents.
62. Clause (2) of Section 11 raises a
presumption. It stipulates that any person, who is
in charge of a child who was married off, is
presumed to have negligently failed to prevent the
child marriage. The presumption is a rebuttable one
and may be defended if the person proves that he
could not have prevented the marriage or failed at
preventing it, having tried to do so to the best of
their ability. This principle is only applicable to an
offence under Section 11.”
(Emphasis supplied)
– 16 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14634
CRL.P No. 1605 of 2026
HC-KAR
The Apex Court holds that any person, be it produced in a
temple who perform the marriage or Authorities of the temple
to permit marriage or any place where the marriage takes place
and the place belongs to someone, they would aid and fall
within the ingredients of Section 11. The Apex Court has clearly
held that any person involved in the said marriage, who does
not stop the conduct of such marriage, will become open to
prosecution.
11. Further, it becomes apposite to refer to the judgment
of the High Court of Kerala, in identical circumstances, where
the appellants pleaded ignorance of law and also pleaded that
marriage was performed in those facts and circumstances. The
Kerala High Court in MOIDUTTY MUSLIYAR v. SUB-
INSPECTOR VADAKKENCHERRY POLICE STATION2, has
held as follows:
“…. …. ….
30. The prohibition of child marriage is important
in the modern society. Child marriage denies children
their basic human rights, including the right to education,
health and protection from exploitation. Early marriage
and pregnancy can lead to health problems such as infant
2
2024 SCC OnLine Ker 4188
– 17 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14634
CRL.P No. 1605 of 2026
HC-KAR
mortality, maternal mortality and sexually transmitted
infections. Child marriage often forces girls to drop out
the school, limiting their education and future
opportunities. Child brides are more vulnerable to
domestic violence and abuse. Child marriage can
perpetuate poverty and limit economic opportunities for
individuals and communities. Child marriage can lead to
emotional and psychological trauma, including depression
and anxiety to the children. Child marriage can lead to
social isolation and disconnection from the family and
community. Moreover, child marriage is a violation of
international human rights law and conventions as well.
Let the children study according to their wishes. Let them
travel, let them enjoy life and when they attained
maturity, let them decide about their marriage. In the
modern society, there cannot be any compulsion for
marriage. Majority of the girls are interested in studies.
Let them study and let them enjoy their life, of course
with the blessings of their parents. When they attain
majority and decided that a partner is necessary in their
life, let it happen at the appropriate stage so that child
marriage can be eradicated from the society. As I
mentioned earlier, it is the duty of every citizen to see
that there is no child marriage. It is also the duty of the
nongovernmental organizations to inform the Child
Marriage Prohibition Officer, if any information is received
about the likelihood of taking place of solemnization of
child marriage. The Judicial First-Class Magistrate of the
State also should be alert and should
take suomotu cognizance, if any reliable report or
information is received about child marriage. Let the print
and visual media also take initiative to see that there is
no child marriage in the State in future at least. I am sure
that, all of them will do their job to see that our girls are
protected from child marriage.”
The High Court of Kerala holds that child marriage denies the
child its absolute rights including the right to education, health
and protection from exploitation. Several other problems that
the young girl would face is also taken note of. The Court
– 18 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14634
CRL.P No. 1605 of 2026
HC-KAR
refuses to quash the proceedings even on the submission of the
religion permitting such marriage. I am in respectful
agreement with what the High Court of Kerala has held.
12. In the case at hand, accused No.1 was not a child. He
was 27 years old adult and was working at that point in time.
All the male members of the family who participated in the
marriage were all working. Ignorance of law is no excuse.
Therefore, the petitioners must face trial for the offences under
the provisions of the Act. The defence cannot be considered by
this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS.
13. This Court is increasingly confronted with the growing
stream of litigation arising either under the provisions of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO’
Act for short) or under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act,
2006. A disturbing pattern emerges from these cases. Parents
of both the boy and the girl, acting in concert and often under
the mistaken cloak of social propriety, solemnize marriages of
girls before they attain the age of 18 years. What is presented
as a familial consent, is in truth a surrender of childhood.
– 19 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14634
CRL.P No. 1605 of 2026
HC-KAR
14. As poignantly observed by the Apex Court, child
marriage is not a benign cultural practice, but a denial of
basic human rights. It curtails education, imperils health
and exposes child to exploitation – emotional, social and
economic. The formative years for learning, self
discovery and intellectual blossoming are permanently
burdened with adult responsibilities.
15. 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 submission that the couple is presently living in
harmony, does not efface the illegality committed at the time of
solemnisation. Criminal liability is measured at the
moment 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. Parents who ought to
bless their daughters with encouragement, education
and empowerment, instead bless them with premature
– 20 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14634
CRL.P No. 1605 of 2026
HC-KAR
matrimony. If such conduct were to receive judicial
indulgence, the eradication of child marriage would
remain an illusive aspiration. This Court, therefore,
cannot and will not extend its protective arm, to those
who indulge in marriage of a child.
16. 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 solemnized 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 burden of proving
whether a child had attained majority lies in appropriate
cases at the stage of trial, especially, in view of the
presumption under Section 11(2) of the Act. The reverse
– 21 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14634
CRL.P No. 1605 of 2026
HC-KAR
burden underscores the seriousness with which
Parliament views the protection of minors. The message,
therefore, must ring clear and unequivocal, child
marriage must be eradicated in its entirety.
17. Wherefore, the 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. The print and electronic media, as vital
instruments of public consciousness, must also play their role in
sensitizing society. Eradication of child marriage is not merely a
statutory goal, it is a Constitutional imperative. The law
protects childhood, so that it may blossom into informed
adulthood. This Court will not permit this protection to
be diminished.
– 22 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14634
CRL.P No. 1605 of 2026
HC-KAR
18. For the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit in the
petition, the petition stands rejected.
Consequently, pending I.A.No.1 of 2026 also stands
disposed.
SD/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 57