High Courts(2010) 02 AHC CK 0237

Sunil @ Lala vs State of U.P.and others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 23 February 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shri Kant Tripathi, J and Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 9619 of 2009

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 398 words

Satyendra Singh Chauhan And Shri Kant Tripathi, JJ.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. as well as Counsel for the complainant.

2.

Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that according to the medical report, the age of the girl has been found to be 17 years and it is a marginal case as the girl is not educated and no school certificate is available with her, therefore, the discretion of two years margin will be exercised in favour of the girl. He further submits that once the girl is found to be major, it is to be presumed that she has married petitioner No. 1 on her own sweet will and in the present case the girl is having a child as well.

Counsel for the complainant, however, has refuted the above allegations and has only submitted that the girl is minor, therefore, she cannot contract the marriage.

3.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we find that according to the medical opinion the girl has been found to be 17 years and there should be variation of two years on either side and since the girl is having a child out of the wedlock of husband and they are living peacefully and happily, no useful purpose would be served in annulling the marriage at this stage when the Court finds that the giral is major and she was having authority under law to contract the marriage. Marriage having been solemnized at the behest of the major girl, it cannot be said that there was any illegality in contracting the marriage. Since both the husband and wife are major, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the criminal proceedings any further on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant. The law in this regard has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and another, 2006 (56) ACC 234 (SC) = 2006 (44) AIC 47 (SC) and we are also in agreement with the legal proposition laid down in the above case.

4.

Accordingly, we quash the F.I.R. contained in Annexure No. 1 and direct the authorities to allow the husband and wife to live peacefully and will not create any hindrance in their peaceful living.

Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is allowed.