Bengaluru: The plea of parents who claimed they married off their minor daughter during the Covid-19 pandemic out of fear that the virus might claim lives did not find favour with the Karnataka high court, which refused to quash criminal proceedings in the child marriage case.Dismissing the petition, Justice M Nagaprasanna made it clear that fear or subsequent harmony in the marriage cannot erase the illegality of marrying off a minor.“The law protects childhood, so that it may blossom into informed adulthood. This court will not permit this protection to be diminished,” the judge said.The case related to a marriage solemnised at Devanahalli on Aug 30, 2021, when the groom was 27 years old and the girl was 16. A suo motu complaint was filed by the local child protection officer under the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, following which police filed a chargesheet against the groom, his and the girls’ parents.Seeking to quash the proceedings, the accused argued that the girl is now over 20 years old and the marriage was registered after she turned 18. They also contended that the wedding took place at the height of the Covodi-19 pandemic and that they rushed the marriage, fearing the disease could take away lives. The parents further submitted that they were unaware of the legal consequences when the ceremony was conducted.However, the court was not persuaded. Justice Nagaprasanna noted that sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Act – which penalise child marriage and its promotion – serve as a strong legal shield against child marriages.“They are not merely penal provisions; they are legislative declarations that childhood shall not be prematurely surrendered at the altar of matrimony,” the judge said.“The Supreme Court poignantly observed that child marriage is not a benign cultural practice, but a denial of basic human rights. It curtails education, imperils health, and exposes a child to exploitation—emotional, social, and economic. The formative years for learning, self-discovery, and intellectual blossoming are permanently burdened with adult responsibilities,” the order noted.Justice Nagaprasanna observed: “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.”He added that parents who should empower their daughters often end up pushing them into premature marriage.Issuing further directions, the court said authorities must spread awareness about the law.“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 the marriage of a person below the age of 18 years is prohibited by law and attracts criminal consequences.”——————-No retrospective validationWhat Justice M Nagaprasanna said-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 matrimony. If such conduct were to receive judicial indulgence, the eradication of child marriage would remain an elusive aspiration-Where a marriage is solemnised 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
