‘Ignorance of law no excuse’: Karnataka HC rules priests, temple trusts liable for prosecution in child marriage cases

The court referred to Section 11 of the Act, which outlines accountability for those who promote, permit, or fail to prevent such marriages, and said, “The pernicious practice of child marriage must be decisively uprooted.”

Furthermore, the court mandated that temple authorities, marriage halls, and any other venues that typically host marriages must display notices stating that child marriage is prohibited by law and carries criminal consequences.

The court in the order asked child development project officers to ensure that awareness of criminal liability is displayed at every venue where marriages are usually performed.

These directives were issued while dismissing a petition filed by a man and his parents-in-law, who faced charges under various provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

A suo-motu complaint filed by the Child Development Officer in August 2021 alleged that the parents arranged their 16-year-old daughter’s marriage to a 27-year-old man. The respective court took cognizance of the offence, and the matter is pending for the framing of charges before the trial court. The accused sought to quash the prosecution.

The directions were given while dismissing a petition filed by a man, his parents, and in-laws who were charged under various provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

The accused have sought to quash the prosecution.

Advocate Sadakath U, appearing for the petitioners argued that they were ignorant of the law and its consequences. They only wanted to get their daughter married off, fearing that the Covid-19 pandemic would take away their lives. Further, the marriage has been duly registered after the girl turned 18-years and the couple has been living together.

Additional State Public Prosecutor B N Jagadeesha opposed the petition, stating that the girl could not have been married by her parents when she was still a minor. He argued that since the case is currently undergoing hearings, it should not be dismissed.

Child marriage is a social wrong 

The bench, referring to various provisions of the Act, said, “Child marriage is not a private family engagement beyond scrutiny, but a social wrong, demanding accountability at every level of participation. The statute stands not merely as a punitive measure, but as a declaration that the rights of the child would always outweigh the convenience of the custom.”

Rejecting the arguments raised by the petitioners, the bench said, “Ignorance of law is no excuse. Therefore, the petitioners must face trial for the offences under the provisions of the Act.”

‘Law protects childhood’: HC  

Justice Nagaprasanna opined that a girl married before 18 years does not merely enter matrimony, she exits opportunity. “The promise of education fades into abstraction. The dream of academic or professional advancement remains precisely that, a dream. The submission that the couple is presently living in harmony does not efface the illegality committed at the time of solemnisation,” the judge said.

Further, the court order said, “Parents who ought to bless their daughters with encouragement, education, and empowerment, instead bless them with premature matrimony. If such conduct were to receive judicial indulgence, the eradication of child marriage would remain an illusive aspiration.”

The bench in the order noted that criminal liability is measured at the moment of commission, not neutralised by the subsequent domestic peace. “To accept otherwise would be to convert penal law into a matter of retrospective validation through sentiment. This court, therefore, cannot and will not extend its protective arm to those who indulge in the marriage of a child,” the court held.

Rejecting the petition, the bench in the order said, “The law protects childhood, so that it may blossom into informed adulthood. This court will not permit this protection to be diminished.”