Youth accused of cruelty by ‘wife’ denies marrying her

A youth accused of cruelty by his “estranged wife” has claimed in the High Court that he was only 14 years old on the date on which the woman reportedly married him.

Though S. Mannan (name changed) of Paramakudi in Ramanathapuram district contended that he could not have married the complainant at such a tender age, Justice P. Kalaiyarasan refused to quash the case, saying that the police had laid the charge sheet against him as well his parents only on the basis of statements recorded from various witnesses under Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

“No doubt, 14 years is not a marriageable age as per Section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. However, the petitioners cannot take advantage of that and claim that the marriage itself was not solemnised between the first petitioner and the de facto complainant. The above contention may be a defence in the case booked against them and the petitioners have to put forth such a defence only before the lower court during the course of trial,” the judge said.

The order was passed while dismissing a petition pending in the High Court since 2010.

It had been filed by the youth and his parents with a plea to quash the charge sheet laid against them before a Judicial Magistrate court in Paramakudi on December 12, 2009 under Sections 498A and 506 part I (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Personnel attached to an All Women Police Station had laid the charge sheet following a complaint lodged by the youth’s maternal cousin on November 11, 2009.

‘False complaint’

The complainant, an issueless woman, claimed to have married the first petitioner on September 11, 2002 and was treated cruelly by him as well as by his parents for seven long years.

Denying the charge, he claimed that he was a minor in 2002.

Relying on his Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) to substantiate the claim that he was born on April 27, 1988, he accused his cousin of lodging a false complaint after he married another woman on October 28, 2009.

However, Mr. Justice Kalaiyarasan said: “There are sufficient materials to make out the offences as against the petitioners, and the Judicial Magistrate has, after perusing the charge sheet and the materials filed along with the charge sheet, taken cognisance of the offences against the petitioners. Therefore, this court does not see any abuse of process of law to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) and quash the charge sheet.”