The complaint involves a child marriage that allegedly took place on December 30, 2012, in Vadakkancherry, Palakkad district, conducted according to Islamic rites. The first accused is the father who married off his minor daughter to the second accused. The third and fourth accused are the President and Secretary of the Islam Juma Masjid Mahal Committee, respectively, and the fifth accused served as a witness to the marriage.
The petitioners contended that under Islamic law, a Muslim girl has the 'Khiyar-ul-bulugh' or 'Option of Puberty,' which allows her to marry upon reaching puberty, typically around 15 years old. They argued that a marriage involving a minor is not deemed void but rather voidable at the girl's discretion once she reaches puberty. They further asserted that Muslim personal law should take precedence over the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
The Court urged Magistrates to remain vigilant regarding their authority to take suo motu cognizance of child marriages. It stated, “Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that all Magistrates in the State should be alert to take cognizance if any reliable report or information about a child marriage is received.”
The Court said, “The visual media should also broadcast documentaries and shows on child marriage, creating public service announcements and awareness campaigns, depicting the negative consequences of child marriage in movies and TV shows, interviewing experts, survivors and activists. The print and visual media should be a platform for voices against child marriage, encouraging public discourse and debate, supporting and amplifying initiatives working towards eradicating child marriage, holding those in power accountable for enforcing laws and policies, educating the public about the physical, emotional and psychological harm caused by child marriage etc.”
Let the children study according to their wishes. Let them travel, let them enjoy life and when they attained maturity, let them decide about their marriage. In the modern society, there cannot be any compulsion for marriage. Majority of the girls are interested in studies. Let them study and let them enjoy their life, of course with the blessings of their parents.”
In this case, the Court rejected the petitioners' argument that their minor daughter could marry upon reaching puberty under Islamic law, emphasizing that this did not exempt them from the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. The Court also noted that it could not dismiss the complaint filed by a Muslim man against the petitioners solely due to the delay in its submission.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the case, ruling that the petitioners had not provided sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings.
Counsel for Petitioners: Advocate R.O.Muhamed Shemeem, Naseeha Beegum P.S
Counsel for Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Renjith T R, Amicus Curiae K M Firoz
Case Title: Moidutty Musliyar v Sub Inspector Vadakkencherry Police Station
Case Number: Crl.M.C.No.2515 of 2016
