The Madras High Court Bench here has denied a city-based woman the custody of her 16-year-old daughter reportedly given in marriage to a person, who had abused the girl sexually before she was rescued by District Child Welfare Committee (CWC) and lodged in a Children’s Home .
Dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by the woman accusing the CWC of detaining her daughter illegally, a Division Bench of Justices S. Nagamuthu and M.V. Muralidaran said the woman should have objected to the wedlock even if her claim of the marriage having been performed without her consent was true.
On perusing the Case Diary produced by the Inspector of All Women Police Station at Tirupparankundram here, the judges found that the girl had been given in marriage to Vinothkumar on August 18 and he had been booked by the police under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
During the course of hearing on the habeas corpus petition, Additional Public Prosecutor A. Ramar told the court that the First Information Report would be altered and provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 shall be included since the victim had been sexually abused. Mr. Ramar also said the case was registered on a complaint lodged by the CWC which had chosen to rescue the girl and keep her in safe custody in order to prevent her from being subjected to harassment or further abuse. After recording his submission, the judges decided to dismiss the case even without ordering notice to the CWC.
The Division Bench said: “A perusal of the Case Diary would go to show that the said case was registered on the allegation that a child marriage was celebrated between Vinothkumar and the child in violation of the POCSO Act and she was also sexually abused. Prima facie, Mr. Vinothkumar has committed offences against the child. “Since the order passed by the District Child Welfare Committee is appealable under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, no relief could be granted in this habeas corpus petition to the petitioner. She is at liberty to work out her remedy before the appropriate forum,” the judges said.
Section 101 of the 2015 Act states no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding could be initiated against the Centre, State government or any person acting under the directions of those government in respect of anything which was done or intended to be done in good faith in pursuance of the Act or of any rules or regulations made thereunder.
Says mother should have objected even if marriage had been performed without her consent
