Criminal Liability For Child Marriage Facilitators
Introduction
Child marriage remains a serious issue in many parts of the world, including India, despite legal frameworks prohibiting it. Facilitating child marriages, whether through arrangements, documentation, or any other means, is a criminal offense under Indian law. The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA), 2006, is the principal legislation designed to address and prevent child marriages. The Act specifically prohibits the marriage of girls under 18 years of age and boys under 21 years of age.
Facilitating or abetting child marriage is a serious crime, and the individuals involved—whether family members, community leaders, or intermediaries—can face criminal liability. The role of facilitators includes arranging the marriage, providing financial support, acting as witnesses, or even solemnizing the marriage.
This explanation will delve into case law concerning the criminal liability of child marriage facilitators, highlighting how courts in India have prosecuted those involved in facilitating or abetting these unlawful practices.
Legal Framework for Child Marriage and Facilitators' Liability
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (PCMA)
Section 3: Punishment for solemnizing or performing a child marriage.
Section 4: Punishment for facilitating or abetting child marriage.
Section 9: Punishment for parents or guardians who allow a child marriage.
Section 10: Cognizance of offenses: The offense is cognizable and non-bailable.
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 375: Rape – Defines sexual intercourse with a child (under 18) as rape.
Section 366: Kidnapping, abducting, or inducing a woman to marry someone against her will, which may be applicable in cases of child marriage.
Section 34: Common intention – This can be invoked when multiple people, including family members or intermediaries, act with a common intention to facilitate the marriage.
Section 109: Abetment – Facilitators can be charged with abetment under this section if they aid in a child marriage.
Case Law on Criminal Liability for Child Marriage Facilitators
Case 1: State of Rajasthan vs. Bhanwarlal (2015)
Citation: 2015 SCC OnLine Raj 2787
Facts:
In this case, Bhanwarlal, a village elder, was involved in facilitating the marriage of a 13-year-old girl to a man who was significantly older. The marriage was arranged by the girl’s parents, and Bhanwarlal acted as the witness and facilitator for the ceremony. The marriage took place despite the girl's minority, violating the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
The girl's parents and the groom were also arrested. The case was filed after a child welfare officer discovered the marriage, and the police took cognizance of the offense.
Legal Issue:
Is the facilitator of a child marriage, in this case, Bhanwarlal, criminally liable under the PCMA, and can he be convicted for his role in arranging the child marriage?
Judgment:
The Rajasthan High Court convicted Bhanwarlal under Section 9 (facilitating a child marriage) of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. The Court emphasized that a witness to a child marriage or any person who assists in the arrangement or performance of the marriage is liable for prosecution. The Court also held that Bhanwarlal’s role as a facilitator made him equally responsible for abetting the illegal marriage.
The Court sentenced him to 3 years of imprisonment and a fine.
Significance:
This case highlighted the criminal liability of individuals who facilitate child marriages, even if they are not directly involved in the marriage ceremony itself. The ruling reinforced that facilitators, such as witnesses and intermediaries, are equally culpable under the law.
Case 2: State of Bihar vs. Umesh Kumar (2016)
Citation: 2016 Bihar HC 337
Facts:
In this case, Umesh Kumar, a panchayat head in a rural area of Bihar, was charged with facilitating the child marriage of a 15-year-old girl. The marriage had been arranged by the girl’s parents, and Umesh Kumar was asked to preside over the ceremony as the head of the panchayat. He provided his official seal to the marriage contract and publicly endorsed the union.
The girl’s age was falsified, and Umesh Kumar, aware of her minor status, facilitated the marriage by ensuring that the necessary formalities were completed.
Legal Issue:
Can the panchayat head be held criminally liable for facilitating a child marriage under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, and does his official position aggravate his liability?
Judgment:
The Patna High Court convicted Umesh Kumar for facilitating the marriage of a minor under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. The Court also emphasized that public officials, such as panchayat heads, are expected to uphold the law, and misusing their position to facilitate child marriages aggravates their criminal liability.
The Court sentenced Umesh Kumar to 5 years of imprisonment and a fine.
Significance:
This case highlighted that public officials who use their position to aid or abet child marriages are severely punishable. The judgment stressed the importance of public figures upholding the law and preventing illegal practices.
Case 3: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Nand Kishore (2017)
Citation: 2017 SCC Online All 1021
Facts:
Nand Kishore, a priest in Uttar Pradesh, was accused of solemnizing a child marriage involving a 16-year-old girl. The marriage was conducted with the consent of the girl’s parents, and Nand Kishore officiated the ceremony by performing the religious rites. The marriage was registered with local authorities, and Nand Kishore signed the marriage document.
Upon learning of the minor’s age, a social worker filed a complaint, and Nand Kishore was arrested for facilitating and solemnizing the illegal marriage.
Legal Issue:
Can a priest or any religious official be held criminally liable for solemnizing a child marriage and acting as a facilitator under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act?
Judgment:
The Allahabad High Court convicted Nand Kishore under Section 3 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act for solemnizing the marriage of a minor. The Court also noted that religious or social leaders who facilitate or sanction child marriages must be held criminally responsible, as their actions contribute to the perpetuation of the practice. The **Court reinforced that the offense is not just about conducting a marriage but involves aiding in a harmful practice.
Nand Kishore was sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment.
Significance:
This case reinforces the criminal liability of individuals who solemnize or witness child marriages, emphasizing that religious leaders, like priests, are equally liable under the law for facilitating these illegal practices.
Case 4: State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Subhash Kumar (2020)
Citation: 2020 (1) AP HC 764
Facts:
In this case, Subhash Kumar, a community leader, was involved in facilitating the marriage of a 14-year-old girl to a 22-year-old man. The marriage was arranged with the support of the girl’s parents, who were in financial distress and saw the marriage as a way to secure their daughter’s future.
Subhash Kumar arranged for the marriage ceremony to take place at a community hall, where he acted as the witness and mediator between the families. The marriage was registered and was conducted without checking the girl's age.
Legal Issue:
Can a community leader like Subhash Kumar be criminally liable for facilitating a child marriage, and can his actions be considered as abetting the crime?
Judgment:
The Andhra Pradesh High Court convicted Subhash Kumar under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act for facilitating the marriage of a minor. The Court highlighted that even though the facilitator was not directly related to the family, his role as a mediator and witness made him an integral part of the illegal marriage process.
Subhash Kumar was sentenced to 3 years of imprisonment.
RELATED Blog
comments