Allahbad High Court Declares 2004 “Wedding” Of Minors “Void”

Prayagraj:

Permitting an attraction in opposition to a household court docket judgment, Allahabad Excessive Court docket has declared as “void” the 2004 “wedding ceremony” of a person who was 12 years previous on the time with a nine-year-old woman.

It additionally ordered that the person pay his “spouse” Rs 25 lakh.

In a 47-page judgment after holding that the swimsuit was filed throughout the limitation and the appellant husband alone was entitled to file it, the excessive court docket noticed that the household court docket erred in dismissing the matter.

The judgment was handed on October 25 by a bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh, permitting the attraction filed by the “husband” in opposition to the judgment of the principal choose on the household court docket in Gautam Buddh Nagar.

Within the swimsuit filed earlier than the household court docket, the appellant sought that his “marriage”, solemnised on November 28, 2004, be declared “void”.

In keeping with paperwork, the appellant was born on August 7, 1992, whereas the respondent (spouse) was born on January 1, 1995.

The excessive court docket stated, “The appellant was greater than 18 years of age. He alone might have filed that swimsuit in his particular person capability. As to limitation, we’ve got already reached a conclusion contemplating the choice of the Supreme Court docket that the appellant had limitation obtainable as much as 23 years of age to institute that swimsuit. Undoubtedly, on the date of establishment of the swimsuit by the appellant, he was lower than 23 years of age.” “Accordingly, the order of the discovered court docket beneath can’t be sustained. It’s put aside. The transaction of ‘baby marriage’ carried out between the events is said void. Let Rs 25,00,000 (Rs 25 lakh) be paid to the respondent (spouse) inside a interval of 1 month. Failing that, the awarded quantity shall carry curiosity of 8 per cent after one month until the date of its precise fee,” the bench additional stated.

(Apart from the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV workers and is printed from a syndicated feed.)