Machhindra Appaji Patil and Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE-
The petition is filed by a 56 years old lawyer who married a minor girl, now a major and is willing to cohabit with her husband. The petitioner on the other hand, is accused under Section 376(2)(i)(n), 323 and 496 of Indian Penal Code 186- and Section 6 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, and Section 9, 10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 for setting aside of FIR u/s 482 of IPC.
BENCH-
JUSTICE Ranjit More
JUSTICE Bharati Dangre
FACTS OF THE CASE-
The petitioner married the respondent (present wife) on 21 April 2015 who was 14 years and 7 months old, after the death of his first wife in 2014. On February 13, 2017, the present wife of the petitioner registered an FIR against him at Kalachowki Police Station in Mumbai. The petitioner and the grandparents of the respondent took into custody for 10 months and 1 month respectively. The petitioner and the respondent later settled their dispute and together approached the Court to dismiss the crime by consent.
PETITION’S APPEAL-
Since the marriage between the petitioner and his present wife i.e. respondent no. 2 is voidable as per the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and the wife are willing to cohabit with her accused husband, the FIR should be taken down in the interest of the two. The Respondent no 2 has also submitted an affidavit stating her willingness to cohabit with her husband and also stated that she was not aware that the FIR will take such a serious turn.
RESPONDENT’S APPEAL-
Dismissing the case would set a wrong example to the mass and seeing the seriousness of the crime, the FIR should not be quashed.
ISSUE-
Is the marriage still valid ?
JUDGMENT-
The Court stated that marriage is voidable as respondent 2 was a minor at the time of marriage but at present, as she wants to cohabit after attaining majority, the marriage will now be considered valid. The court deferred the date of hearing to 10 February 2020 to ensure that the behavior and conduct of the petitioner towards his wife is good. The Court also clarified that this order shall not be treated as a precedent as the order was passed according to the peculiar facts and circumstances.
