Bathing beauty and the animal - Page 11

3. Child marriages to be voidable at the option of contracting party being a child. - (1) Every child marriage, whether solemnised before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable at the option of the contracting party who was a child at the time of the marriage:
Provided that a petition for annulling a child marriage by a decree of nullity may be filed in the district court only by a contracting party to the marriage who was a child at the time of the marriage.

(2) If at the time of filing a (annulment) petition, the petitioner is a minor, the petition may be filed through his or her guardian or next friend along with the Child Marriage Prohibition Officer.

In other words, either Kundan or Urmi could have filed for annulling their marriage in the district court. But only in a situation where they have reached adulthood which they have not.

Indeed, because both are treated as minor clause(2) kicks in, which means that the annulment petition could be filed by either child's guardian or next friend (usually someone who represents the child's interests and appointed by court) along with the Child Marriage Prohibition Officer. And this has to be done in the district court/family court

In Kundan-Urmi's case Anandi's role was limited to filing a complaint. The annulment of the marriage had to follow the filing of the annulment petition in court, in this case by the guardians as the two are treated as minor.

The marriage cannot be declared void either on Anandi's say-so or by a unilateral decree of the court.

Far worse, the lawyer announced that the Indian law does not recognise child marriage and so it was null and void.

People seem to find all this perfectly acceptable. That on Anandi's complaint, Urmi's father can be arrested and her marriage to Kundan declared void. People even argue that it is none of A's business if the pregnant Urmi is distressed on account of her father being sent to jail.

Yet in Mannu-Pooja case the mollycoddling of the couple is justified on the ground that the marriage was voluntary. Also that Pooja alone can file for annulment. The law does not say anything about voluntary child marriage (obviously because it is absurd).

In other words in Pooja Mannu case, the parents/guardians could have filed for annulment as the two like Urmi-Kundan have been treated as minor.

If for argument sake we accept that MP marriage was voluntary, so was Kundan-Urmi's.

Kundan was dying to get married and Urmi was happy to get married too. She was not forced into it. It is a different matter that she had filmy ideas about marriage.

Manny-Pooja too thought that it was all hunky dory and are realising now how foolish they were.

So why apply two yardsticks for the two child marriages?