- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- "Minor Couples Shouldn't Enter Into...
"Minor Couples Shouldn't Enter Into Institution Of Marriage; Pained That Children Indulge In Such Relations": Allahabad High Court
Sparsh Upadhyay
21 July 2022 9:14 AM IST
"The age of 15-16 years or below 18 years is not the age where any young couple should enter into the institution of marriage," the Allahabad High Court observed recently as it granted bail to a man accused of raping a minor girl taking into account the larger interest of the child born out of their consensual relationship.The Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan however clarified that the...
At the very outset, the Court observed that it was pained to notice the fact that children of tender age, who have not attained the age of majority, are indulging in such type of relations which may not be said to be a proper relation.
Further, the Court remarked thus:
"When a certain age has been prescribed by the statute to get married and live accordingly, any such act which has been committed prior to such age can not be approved. The age of 15-16 years or below 18 years is not the age where any young couple should enter into the institution of marriage."
However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Court noted that the accused and the prosecutrix have not only got married but they are having an infant son from said wedlock.
Further, stressing that it is the responsibility of the couple to look after their child properly, the court said that if the accused is not released from jail or if he is kept in jail, there might be a possibility that his minor wife with his son might not be taken care of properly by his parents.
Therefore, considering the larger interest of the child and mother, the bail plea of the accused was allowed on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Case title - Suraj v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3511 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 333