Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 – s.9 – Interpretation of – High Court directed registration of FIR for criminal offence u/s. 9 of the Act, 2006 against the appellant – It was alleged that appellant was only 17 years, when he married respondent no.1 – However, it is not disputed that respondent no.1 (wife of the appellant) was a major at the time of marriage – Held: A literal interpretation of ss.2(a), 2(b) and 9 would mean that if a male aged between the years of eighteen and twenty-one contracts marriage with a female above eighteen years of age, female adult would not be punished, but it is the male who would be punished for contracting a child marriage, though he himself is a child – However, such interpretation goes against the object of the Act – The intention was to punish the male adults contracting child marriages to protect minor young girls – This is also supported by the marginal note of the s.9, which reads “Punishment for male adult marrying a child” – Thus, the words “male adult above eighteen years of age, contracts a child marriage” in s.9 should be read as “male adult above eighteen years of age marries a child” – In the instant case, the High Court committed error on the face of record as appellant was
17 years old i.e. below eighteen years when he married respondent no.1 – Hence, s.9 was not applicable to the appellant – Accordingly, the direction of the High Court to register FIR quashed and the impugned order set aside – Interpretation of statutes. Interpretation of statutes – Marginal note of section – Held: It is well settled that where any ambiguity exists with regard to the interpretation of a legislative provision, the marginal note can be used in aid of construction, having regard to the object of the legislation and the mischief it seeks to remedy. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Section 2(a) of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 defines child as a person who, if a male, has not completed twenty-one years of age, and if a female, has not completed eighteen years of age. Under Section 2(b) of the Act, “child marriage” means a marriage to which either of the contracting parties is a child. Thus, even if the husband is between eighteen and twenty-one years of age, it can be treated as a child marriage. [Para 3.1] [124-C]
2. It is not in dispute that Respondent No.1 (wife of the Appellant) was a major at the time of marriage. The 2006 Act does not make any provision for punishing a female adult who marries a male child. Hence, a literal interpretation of the above provisions of the 2006 Act would mean that if a male aged between the years of eighteen and twenty-one contracts marriage with a female above eighteen years of age, the female adult would not be punished, but it is the male who would be punished for contracting a child marriage, though he himself is a child. [Para 3.2] [124-D-E]
3. Section 9 of the 2006 Act must be viewed in the backdrop of the gender dimension to the practice of child marriage. Thus, it can be inferred that the intention behind punishing only male adults contracting child marriages is to protect minor young girls from the negative consequences thereof by creating a deterrent effect for prospective grooms who, by virtue of being above eighteen years of age are deemed to have the capacity to opt out of such marriages. However, it cannot be gleaned that the legislators sought to punish a male between the age of eighteen and twenty-one years who contracts into a marriage with a female adult. Instead, the 2006 Act affords such a male, who is a child for the purposes of the Act, the remedy of getting the marriage annulled by proceeding under Section 3 of the 2006 Act. Hence, male adults between the age of eighteen and twenty-one years of age, who marry female adults cannot be brought under the ambit of Section 9, as this is not the mischief that the provision seeks to remedy. [Para 3.8] [126-E-G]
4. This view is supported by the marginal note of Section 9, which reads “Punishment for male adult marrying a child”. It is well settled that where any ambiguity exists with regard to the interpretation of a legislative provision, the marginal note can be used in aid of construction, having regard to the object of the legislation and the mischief it seeks to remedy. In view of the above, the words “male adult above eighteen years of age, contracts a child marriage” in Section 9 of the 2006 Act should be read as “male adult above eighteen years of age marries a child”. [Para 3.9] [126-H; 127-A]
The 205th Report of the Law Commission of India on the Proposal to Amend the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Other Allied Laws at pages 15-23 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.