Criminal Misc. No.M-30306 of 2009 v. State of Haryana & Ors.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.K.V.Nanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate for respondent no.4 S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioners filed the present petition with the allegations which may be indicated as under:- The parties have entered into a Niqah which was performed by Kazi Mohammad Usman son of Mohammad Sadiq Village Jamna Wala, Post Office Sadhora, District Yamuna Nagar. Since petitioner no.1 entered into contract of marriage with petitioner no.2 against the wishes of her parents and relatives i.e. respondents no.4 to 6, she apprehends that the respondents aforementioned would do away with both of them. The precise allegations in the context is that it were above mentioned relations want to marry her to another boy against her wishes and she did not want go in for that marriage. At the time of marriage, petitioner no.1 was of the age of 17 years 8 months; while petitioner no.2 of the age of more than 21 years and two months.

In support of the averment on point of age, the petitioners have enclosed certification Annexures P-1 and P-2 which had been issued by the competent authority in the Health Department of Criminal Misc. No.M-30306 of 2009 -2- **** Haryana. Niqahnama has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. Notice of motion. Mr. S.S.Patter, learned Senior Deputy Advocate Genera, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. R.S.Mamli, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of private respondents. A copy of the petition has been handed over to the learned State Counsel. In the normal course of things, it is routine for the petitioners in such like cases to place on record their photographs taken while in the process of solemnization of marriage. The learned counsel for the petitioners informs that photographs cannot be produced in this case as Muslim Law forbids the obtaining thereof at the time of Niqah.

In order to fix identity of two petitioners, learned counsel was told earlier in the day to place on record recent photographs of both the petitioners which may be read as Ex.C1. Mr. R.S.Mamli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of private respondents, argues that petitioners could not have entered into a valid marriage as petitioner no.1 was a minor and further because she was already married. It is also argued that an FIR on allegations of kidnapping had already been lodged against petitioner no.2. It is not for this Court to comment upon the validity or otherwise of the averred marriage. It is also not for this Court to comment upon the merits or otherwise of the FIR which may have been lodged by the private respondents against petitioner no.2. If the parties are so inclined, they can agitate the controversy about the age of the parties, their eligibility to enter into marriage and also validity of the marriage of the petitioner no.1 in view of her averred earlier marriage in a proper forum.

All that this Court is concerned presently is the grant of protection to the petitioner which must be extended to all citizens of the country. The respondent No. 2 shall ensure that the petitioners Criminal Misc. No.M-30306 of 2009 -3- **** shall have the similar constitutional protection which is available to all the citizens of the country under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The reiteration of that obvious constitutional guarantee would not be inferred to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the averments in the course of the petition qua the factum/validity of their matrimonial alliance. Disposed of accordingly. October 28, 2008 Pka (S. D. ANAND) JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter: Yes/No Criminal Misc. No.M-30306 of 2009 -4- ****