Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In the matter of Machhindra Appaji & Ors. V. State of Maharashtra & Ors. divisional bench of Bombay HC held that in the present case respondent No. 2 who was a minor at the time of marriage but now as she became major has expressed her willingness to cohabit with petitioner No. 1 and is ready to cohabit as his legally wedded wife, the marriage which is otherwise voidable, becomes valid.
The facts of the above case are where Petitioner No. 1, aged 56 Years after the death of his first wife in 2014 married Respondent No. 2 on 21st April, 2015. During the time of marriage respondent was 14 years, 7 Months old and therefore was a minor. After two years of Marriage on 13th February, 2017 Respondent No. 2 registered FIR against petitioner No. 1 and his family members under Sections 376(2)(i)(n) , 323, 496 of IPC along with charges under Section 6, 10 of POCSO and Section 9,10, 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
However, after filling of FIR the matter was settled amicably by the parties and then approached the HC invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing the subject crime by consent. The State in its submission opposed to the quashing of petition because of seriousness of charges framed against the petitioner in FIR. On the contrary, court opined that it is in the best interest of Respondent No. 2 that court must quash the matter as she herself in according to her affidavit stated that “dispute between the parties has been settled and is willfully ready to cohabit with the petitioner”. The Bench observed that Respondent No. 2 and her marriage will suffer if the case is allowed to go on.
Petitioner’s advocate Ashok Mundargi also informed the court about an existing land of 6 Acres has been already transferred in name of Respondent No. 2 and an additional land of 5 Acres along with FD of 7.5 Lakh will also be made by the petitioner in his wife’s name within 3 months from date. The petitioner took responsibility of taking full care of respondent No. 2.The HC in its judgment kept the matter on board till 20th August for compliance of commitments and also stayed on matter until February 10th, 2020 to observe behavior of petitioner towards Respondent No. 2. The Court added a caveat in its judgment that this order is passed in peculiar facts and circumstances and thereby cannot be treated as a precedent.
86540
103860
630
114
59824