Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed an appeal against the High Court's order recalling police protection and directing registration of an FIR under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. The appellant, Hardev Singh, married respondent Harpreet Kaur on 17 April 2010 without parental consent. They sought police protection from the High Court, which was granted on 26 April 2010. Later, on the father's application, the High Court recalled the protection order and directed an FIR, relying on school records showing the appellant's date of birth as 30 June 1992, making him 17 at marriage. The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not recall its order under Section 482 CrPC as there is no provision for review in criminal matters. Further, even if the appellant was 18-21, Section 9 applies only to male adults marrying female children, not to males marrying adult females. The Court quashed the FIR and set aside the impugned order, noting the couple was living happily without threats.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Inherent Powers - Section 482 CrPC - Recall/Review - High Court cannot recall or review its own order in criminal matters under Section 482 CrPC as there is no provision for such recall or review - Held that the High Court erred in recalling its earlier protection order without exceptional circumstances (Paras 2(a)-(b)). B) Child Marriage - Punishment for Male Adult - Section 9, Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 - Interpretation - Section 9 punishes a male adult above 18 years who contracts a child marriage, i.e., marries a female child - A male between 18 and 21 years marrying an adult female does not fall within the mischief of Section 9 - Held that the words 'contracts a child marriage' must be read as 'marries a child' in light of the object and legislative history (Paras 2(c), 3-3.9). C) Child Marriage - Annulment - Section 3, Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 - Remedy for Male Child - A male who is a child (between 18 and 21) marrying an adult female may seek annulment under Section 3, but cannot be prosecuted under Section 9 - Held that the Act provides a remedy of annulment for such males, not punishment (Paras 3.8, 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court could recall its earlier protection order under Section 482 CrPC and whether Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 applies to a male aged between 18 and 21 years who marries an adult female
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 26.11.2010, and quashed the directions to lodge FIR No. 122 dated 24.12.2010. The Court held that the High Court could not recall its earlier order under Section 482 CrPC and that Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 does not apply to a male between 18 and 21 years marrying an adult female.
Law Points
- Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to recall or review orders in criminal matters
- Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act
- 2006 applies only to male adults marrying female children
- not to males between 18-21 marrying adult females
