POORVA BHATIA, 2017, D

Case Name: RAVI KUMAR V THE STATE AND ANR. [124 (2005) DLT 1]

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench: M Sarin, M Goel

Decided On: 5 October, 2005

Brief Facts and Procedural History:

Two petitions in the nature of Habeas Corpus have been filed before the Delhi High Court. Since
both these petitions involve a common question of facts and law, they have been decided
together.

The first petition was filed by Shilpi Sharma, stating that her sister had been missing since
8.12.2004 and that she suspected Ravi Kumar to have enticed, threatened and kidnapped her. As
a result an FIR (Under Section- 363 of IPC), was filed due to which Ravi Kumar was arrested for
kidnapping and Shilpi’s minor sister Shikha was recovered. Shikha being a minor was forcefully
sent to Nari Niketan as she was unwilling to go to her parents. In the meanwhile, upon statement
of Shikha being recorded that she loved Ravi Kumar and had herself called Ravi Kumar and on
her own will got married, Ravi Kumar was granted bail on 8.4.2005. Another petition was filed
by Shikha Sharma, through Ravi Kumar as parokar wherein she prayed to be released from Nari
Niketan and be permitted to accompany the petitioner Ravi Kumar. Resultant, her sister i.e Shilpi
Anand’s statement was recorded on oath wherein she confessed that she now understands that
Shikha and Ravi Kumar had got married of their own accord and that she had lodged the FIR in
the misapprehension that her sister has been enticed and taken away. She stated that she was not
interested in prosecuting the FIR any further. Thus, Court dismissed the case registered pursuant
to her complaint and Shikha was directed to be released from Nari Niketan and permitted to
accompany the petitioner Ravi Kumar.

The second petition (Smt.Phoola Devi v. State) was filed by Smt.Phoola Devi alleging that her
minor daughter had been kidnapped by respondent No.3,Santosh Rai and respondent No.4,
Jhandu Rai who were tenants under the petitioner. Due to filing of FIR under Section 363 IPC,
Sonia, daughter of the petitioner was recovered. In her statement before the Magistrate she
confessed that she had married Santosh Rai out of her own violation. She stated that she had
known him for last 2 years and that she was the one who suggested to Santosh Rai that they
should leave the house and got married as she knew that her parents were not going to approve
the relationship. Petitioner's prayer for custody of Sonia was not granted as Sonia refused to co-
habitat with her mother. Since Santosh Rai was in judicial custody, she was sent to Nari Niketan.

Issues:

1. Whether on account of the minority of the spouse, the marriage entered into is illegal and
void-ab-initio?
POORVA BHATIA, 2017, D

2. Whether young girls getting married having reached the age of discretion but not attained
majority, can be sent in protective custody to a Remand Home against their will?

3. Whether in the present case, the FIR & Criminal Proceedings pursuant thereto for kidnapping
are liable to be quashed?

Relevant Statutory Provisions:

1. Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code (Punishment for kidnapping)

2. Section 5 (iii) of Hindu Marriage Act (Conditions for a Hindu Marriage- Legal Age)
3. Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act (Void Marriages)
4. Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act (Voidable Marriages)
5. Section 18 of Hindu Marriage Act (Punishment for contravention of certain other
conditions for Hindu marriage)

Judgment:

Issue 1. Precedent of Simran Kaur v. State of H.P. (1998) and Gindan and Ors. v. Barelal
relied upon wherein the court held that a marriage solemnized in contravention of the age
mentioned in Section 5(iii), regarding the age restriction, made it only punishable under Section
18 and the marriage solemnized would remain valid, enforceable and recognizable in Courts of
law.

Issue 2. The Court held that there was no provision of law, which permitted minors to be
detained against their will. Thus, it held that even if the minor was about 15 years of age, her
wishes should be ascertained before placing her in the custody of any person or institution like
Nari Niketan. (Reference made to Kalyani Chaudhari v. The State of U.P. and Ors. & Neetu
Singh v. The State and Ors.)

Issue 3. Reference was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.Varadarajan v. State
of Madras where the court held that , "taking or enticing away a minor out of the keeping of a
lawful guardian is an essential ingredient of the offence of kidnapping." (age of discretion v age
of majority). Thus, in this case, court found that there was no taking or enticing away as the girls
having reached the age of discretion had of their own volition accompanied the men of their
choice. Rather, the initiative came from them and they got married of their own accord and are
desirous of living with their respective husbands. Thus, criminal proceedings were quashed by
the court against Ravi Kumar and Santosh Rai as the essential ingredients of kidnapping were
absent.

Conclusion:

A marriage entered with a minor girl (Age 15-18) is not void ab initio and only invites
punishment under Section 18 of Hindu Marriage Act. Moreover, minor girls cannot be detained
POORVA BHATIA, 2017, D

at an institution (like Nari Niketan) or their custody be granted to any person against their
wishes.

Personal Comments:

• Delicate nature of case as it deals with issues of teenage sexual consent, parental pressure
and class differences.
• Appreciate the court's sensitivity as the bench decided that separate proceedings of the
petitions filed would result in denial of access to justice, due to the legal costs involved
vis a vis the economic background of the respondents.
• Independent Thought vs Union Of India (2017): The Supreme Court held that sexual
intercourse by a man with his wife, who is below 18 years of age, is rape, despite
consent. This legal precedent seems to be in logical dissonance with the case at hand.