Sarika through her next friend father vs State of U.P.& Anr.

Shri Narayan Shukla, J.—The present petition has been filed in the style of habeas corpus petition. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, Smt. Sarika as well her husband Monu Yadav is present before this Court and speak that they have solemnized marriage on 6th of April, 2008, according to Hindu rites and they are living happily.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner, to establish that she is under age, submitted the certificate provided by the Board of High School and Intermediate Examination, U.P. for the High School examination of the year 2007 in which her age has been recorded as 5th of June, 1992. As per the date of birth recorded in the Marksheet she still has not completed 18 years and accordingly she does not fulfil the condition for marriage as is provided under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. However, after perusal of the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Act, I am of the view that neither their marriage is void nor voidable, however, it is punishable under Section 18 as in the present case there is a violation of clause (iii) of Section 5 of the Act and subsection (a) of Section 18 provides that every person who procures a marriage of himself or herself to be solemnized under this Act in contravention of the condition specified in clauses (iii), (iv) and (v) of Section 5 shall be punishable in the case of a contravention of the conditions specified in clause (iii) of Section 5, with simple imprisonment which may extend to fifteen days, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Certainly after perusal of the date of birth as recorded in the certificate, I find that Smt. Sarika was under age on the date of marriage and she is punishable under Section 18 of the Act, but looking to her happy and cheerful life living with her husband as well as keeping in view the conditions of jail. I do not wish to impose any such punishment, which may dismantal their life. Therefore, without awarding any punishment under the aforesaid Act she is permitted to live with her husband happily. No further proceeding is required in the matter.

The petition is dismissed.