Scribd
Upload
70 views3 pages

Untitled

The document discusses a case regarding the legitimacy of a child marriage under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act of 2006. It references several previous court cases establishing that child marriages are void under the law as a minor's consent is invalid. It argues the marriage in question does not comply with the law as the girl was only 19 years old at the time of marriage. The document also addresses whether the 2018 amendment to the Act raising the marriageable age for girls from 18 to 21 violates Article 21 of the constitution regarding life and personal liberty. It cites several court precedents establishing the amendment is constitutional and aims to protect girls' health, rights and dignity by preventing child marriage and teenage pregnancy. In conclusion, it requests the court quash the

Uploaded by

Samriti Narang
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
70 views3 pages

Untitled

The document discusses a case regarding the legitimacy of a child marriage under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act of 2006. It references several previous court cases establishing that child marriages are void under the law as a minor's consent is invalid. It argues the marriage in question does not comply with the law as the girl was only 19 years old at the time of marriage. The document also addresses whether the 2018 amendment to the Act raising the marriageable age for girls from 18 to 21 violates Article 21 of the constitution regarding life and personal liberty. It cites several court precedents establishing the amendment is constitutional and aims to protect girls' health, rights and dignity by preventing child marriage and teenage pregnancy. In conclusion, it requests the court quash the

Uploaded by

Samriti Narang
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

If it pleases the Court, may the counsel now state the issue 2nd involved in the case?

Much obliged, your Ladyship


With Reference to the Prohibition of Child marriage Act, 2006 is this marriage legitimate?
Before this Hon’ble Apex Court of Vinath Desh, it is humbly contended that the marriage is
not legitimate under Prohibition of Child marriage Act, 2006 .
In accordance with sec-14 of the Prohibition of Child marriage Act, 2006, Any child marriage
solemnised in contravention of an injunction order issued under section 13, whether interim
or final, shall be void ab initio.
Subsequently, In P.A. Saramma v. Ganapatulu , The High Court of Andhra Pradesh ruled
that a child marriage is void ab initio. Also, the Division Bench held that a Marriage between
the bridegroom and the bride, if their ages do not satisfy the requirements of clause (iii) of
section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act, cannot be solemnized.
Similarly, in the present matter, the marriage solemnised was a child marriage as after the
amendment of the Prohibition of Child marriage Act, 2006 the marriageable age of girls was
increased from 18 to 21 yrs. Rekha being a 19-year-old girl is a minor. Thus, acc. To above
judgement of the High Court, child marriage is void ab initio.
In consonance with Sec-10 of the act, Whoever performs, conducts, directs or abets any child
marriage shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to two years and
shall be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees unless he proves that he had
reasons to believe that the marriage was not a child marriage.
In Yunusbhai Usmanbhai Shaikh v/s State of Gujarat, in this case court held that solemnising
of child marriage is punishable under Section 10 of Prohibition of Child marriage Act, 2006.
Also, the consent of a minor is hardly of any consequence acc. to the act. Further High Court
held that Prohibition of Child marriage Act, 2006 is secular act and they apply to all
communities including the Muslim laws and Hindu laws. It over rides the personal law.
However, high court held that the act is enacted to prevent the child marriages which is still
prevalent in this country, and most common in Muslim community.
In a significant judgment Pradeep Tomar and Another V. State of UP and Another, the
Allahabad High Court has recently held that a minor girl cannot be allowed to live in a
matrimonial relationship with a man she claims to be her husband even if she had left Her
home and married the man out of her own free will. The Single Judge Bench ruled that so
long as the pro sec q trix (prosecutrix) is a minor she cannot be permitted to accompany the
accused Pintoo, whom she claims to have married.
As a matter of fact of our present case it is highly regarded that the consent of Rekha is
insignificant as she is a minor and being a MINOR she is not allowed to be in a matrimonial
relationship with a man until she became a major.
Further Acc. to Sec- 11 of the PCMA, Punishment for promoting or permitting solemnisation
of child marriages.
In the dictum of the case Mamindla Sailoo v/s Mamindla Padma & Another, Division bench
of the court held that solemnization of child marriage is punishable under the section 11 of

MEMO 1
PCMA. Also at the time of the marriage the spouses were minor and it is neither void nor
voidable, and also not a valid marriage. Section 11 renders child marriage solemnized in
contravention of conditions Clause (1), (3), (4) and (5) of Section - 5 under Hindu Marriage
Act. Violation or breach of any of them would be treated as a breach of pre - requisite for a
valid marriage rendering it void.
Similarly, in the present case Rekha is considered a minor under the amendment act of
PCMA i.e. the marriageable age of girls was increased from 18 to 21 yrs. So the marriage
which was being solemnized is considered invalid and the persons responsible for the
solemnization of child marriage should be held liable for the punishment under Sec-11 of
PCMA.
Thus by stating the above mentioned cases and references it is humbly submitted before the
Hon’ble SC that the marriage is not legitimate. Delhi High court in Association for Social
Justice & Research Union of India & others, has held that child marriage is a grave form of
human rights violator. If the marriage is solemnized then, the Human Rights will be deprived
to the girl child. Thus, the objective of the 2018 Amendment is to give equality of rights to
marriage to all irrespective of gender difference. This amendment also aimed to bring down
the incidence of teenage pregnancies, which are not only harmful to women's overall health
but also result in more miscarriages and stillbirths.
If it pleases the Court, may the counsel now state the issue 3rd involved in the case?
Much obliged your ladyship
WHETHER THE AMENDMENT IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 21?
Before this Hon’ble Apex Court of VinathDesh, it is humbly contended that the amendment
act does not violate Article 21 as it states right to life and personal liberty and it includes right
to live with human dignity.
The SC in its judgement observed that Article 21 of the Constitution gives a fundamental
right to a girl child to live a life of dignity. An early marriage takes away the self-esteem and
confidence of a girl child and subjects her, in a sense, to sexual abuse. Under no
circumstances can it be said that such a girl child lives a life of dignity. A sexual intercourse
with a 15- or 20- years old girl child leads her to trauma which is injurious to her body as
well as her mind.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld that a minor girl’s consent is insignificant in
child marriage cases but even if a minor's consent is given she is still violating the Article 21.
It is pertinent to note that similarly in the present case the Child Marriage (Prohibition) Act,
2006 has been amended with the objective that unless women progress on all fronts including
their physical, mental and reproductive health, the nation cannot claim progress.
Furthermore, In Vincent v. Union of India, the SC emphasized that a healthy body is the very
foundation of all human activities.
Child marriage is not a social evil caused by the country’s tradition and culture. But it is a
form of exploitation that takes advantage of the tradition and culture.

MEMO 2
Similarly, in the present case Rekha is of marriageable age as per the societal standard so she
decided to marry.
Further a women's right to make reproductive choices is also a dimension of personal liberty
under Article 21.
The HC held that a woman's inability to survive pregnancy and childbirth violates her
fundamental right to live, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The
unwanted pregnancy may be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the
pregnant woman.
Likewise, in the present case the amendment aimed to bring down the incidence of teenage
pregnancies, which are not only harmful to women's overall health but also result in more
miscarriages and stillbirths. Thus, Appellant itself violating Article 21 by solemnizing the
child marriage.
Subsequently, The Karnataka High Court has said that the right of a woman to exercise her
reproductive choice is a dimension of "personal liberty" and she has a sacrosanct right to have
her bodily integrity protected.

Thus, by stating the above-mentioned cases and references, it is humbly submitted before this
Hon'ble Apex Court that the amendment is not violative of Article 21. Considering the facts
that the objective the 2018 amendment was to give equality of rights to marriage to all
irrespective of gender difference. This amendment also aimed to have a check on typical
(pa – tar – na- lism ) paternalism and to provide access to opportunities to girls concerning
education, employment, health etc.

the counsel seeks permission to begin with the prayer ..


much obliged
WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND
AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO HOLD, DIRECT AND DECLARE:
1. That the appeal, put forth by the appellant in the Hon’ble court of law, must be
quashed since there was a violation of human rights.
2. That the appellant shall be punished for the solemnizing of child marriage.
And/ or pass any other order as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in terms of equity, justice and
good kan she ience (conscience).
And for this act of kindness the Respondent shall forever be duty bound.

MEMO 3

You might also like