Bihar Teen Forcefully Married To 33-Year-Old Man. Supreme Court Steps In
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a notice to the Bihar government on a petition filed by a 16-year-old girl, who is "facing threat" for refusing to continue her "coerced" marriage with a 33-year-old man.
A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuiyan and Justice Manmohan also directed the Bihar police to provide full security to the girl and her friend, who is facing an FIR for alleged kidnapping, after he helped her escape and go into hiding.
The top court sought a report in a sealed cover by July 15.
In her petition, the girl from Bihar sought annulment of her marriage under the Child Marriage Prohibition Act, 2006 that seeks to prevent the solemnisation of child marriages and provide protection and relief to victims.
She said her parents got her married to a civil contractor aged 32-33 years under "coercion" on December 9 and immediately sent her off to her in-laws' house, despite knowing that her Class X board examinations were round the corner. "She was not allowed to return to her parental home by her in-laws who claimed to have given and spent a lot of money for the marriage and repeatedly told her that they wanted a baby," the petition, filed by her friend through advocate Gyanant Singh, said.
"Her husband who is a civil contractor claimed that the Petitioner's parents were indebted to them and she would have to continue in the marriage rather than go for further studies to pursue her dream of becoming a teacher or a lawyer," it added.
The girl's husband, the plea said, used to mercilessly beat" her on a daily basis "for refusing and resisting his attempt at physical relationship". "She remained under severe stress till the second week of January, when her maternal uncle persuaded the in-laws to allow her to return to her parental home for board examination. Despite all odds, she was able to clear the matriculation examination," it said.
As the in-laws began pressuring the girl's parents to send her back, she approached her friend, who agreed to help her after much persuasion. On March 31, the girl ran away from her home and first went to Varanasi with her friend. "They have since been on the run after their location was traced," the plea said.
The girl's family, however, alleged she was kidnapped and filed a case against her friend, his father, mother and maternal uncle. "The Petitioner seeks indulgence of this Hon'ble Court as the family members of her friend are being tortured and threatened to ensure that he abandons me, fearing safety of his parents and family members," the plea said.
"The father of the petitioner has already been arrested merely on the basis of the allegation in the FIR which is false. The arrest is only to ensure that my friend betrays me and hands me back to my family and in-laws," the plea added.
The girl also alleged that her husband has told the villagers that "he would not mind going to jail after killing her". "The state machinery has failed to take appropriate action and come to the rescue of the Petitioner in terms of the mandate of The Prohibition of Child Marriages Act, 2006," the plea said.
The petitioner was represented by advocate Abhishek Rai in the top court.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Telangana HC orders GHMC to return pet dog to owner, says rules not followed during seizure; imposes conditions for safe relocation
The Telangana High Court intervened in the case of a seized pet dog, directing the GHMC to release it HYDERABAD: The Telanagna high court on Wednesday directed the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation ( GHMC ) to immediately release a pet dog seized from its owner, observing that the action was taken without following due process of law and without adequate medical care for the animal. The court also imposed conditions on the owner while releasing the dog. Justice B Vijaysen Reddy passed this interim order in a petition filed by EB Dakshina Murthy (58), an astrologer from Chikkadpally, who had challenged the seizure of his pet dog 'Ares', reportedly a Dogo Argentino breed, by GHMC authorities acting on police instructions. He alleged the dog was confined in a small cage with no proper food or medical attention and urged the court to direct its release. Murthy contended that despite holding a valid pet licence, his dog was forcibly taken away by GHMC officials on May 19 based on a complaint from his brother EB Narsimha Murthy. According to the police and GHMC, the seizure followed a complaint lodged by the petitioner's brother, who alleged that the dog was being used to threaten him and other residents. The complaint led to the registration of an FIR at Chikkadpally police station under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 2025 Top Trending local enterprise accounting software [Click Here] Esseps Learn More Undo The authorities also submitted medical records showing that the complainant had sustained injuries allegedly caused by the dog. However, the court noted that the GHMC had acted without issuing a notice to the petitioner or ensuring proper care for the dog. It found merit in the petitioner's argument that due procedure was not followed. Pending further hearing, the court directed the GHMC's deputy director (veterinary), Secunderabad zone, to release the dog forthwith. However, the court also imposed certain restrictions, barring the petitioner from keeping the dog at his current residence and instructing him to relocate the animal to a safer environment away from strangers. The court further directed the petitioner to implead his brother, the complainant, as a party to the writ petition and clarified that the order would not prevent authorities from taking lawful action if it is ultimately established that the breed in question is banned in India. The matter has been posted to July 9 for further hearing.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Phone tapping probe: Ex-SIB chief Prabhakar Rao keeps mum on naming top officials, Hyderabad cops may seek SC nod for custodial grilling
T Prabhakar Rao, key accused in the phone tapping case, is not cooperating with the investigation. He is refusing to name involved officials and political leaders. Hyderabad police might seek revocation of his arrest protection. HYDERABAD: Former chief of Special Intelligence Bureau, T Prabhakar Rao, the prime accused in the sensational phone tapping case, has so far stonewalled investigators by refusing to name senior IPS officers or political leaders allegedly involved during the previous BRS regime. Though he hinted that certain actions were carried out in coordination with top officials, Prabhakar Rao has remained tight-lipped on specifics, prompting Hyderabad police to consider seeking revocation of his Supreme Court-granted arrest protection. With Prabhakar Rao allegedly not providing leads crucial to cracking the case, police plan to continue questioning him for a few more days. A final decision will soon be taken on approaching the apex court, which had earlier given him interim relief from arrest. Officials are likely to inform the court of his non-cooperation and request permission to proceed with custodial interrogation. So far, he has been interrogated three times. Other than referring to a letter from the then director general of police recommending his reappointment post-retirement-citing his experience in anti-Maoist operations-he has remained evasive, particularly when asked about the core allegations of surveillance. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Поза во сне может многое рассказать о вашем характере! Удивительные Новости Undo He has refused to name the senior officers or political leadership allegedly involved in the phone tapping. Investigators suspect that Prabhakar Rao was instrumental in setting up the now-disbanded special operations team (SOT), headed by then deputy superintendent of police D Praneeth Rao. The unit is believed to have tapped the phones of political opponents, including current chief minister A Revanth Reddy, senior BJP leaders, and dissidents within the BRS to help the ruling party during elections. Meanwhile, after taking the witness statements of different phone tapping victims including Telangana Pradesh Congress Committee (TPCC) president Mahesh Kumar Goud, the investigators are going to take the statements of BJP MPs Eatala Rajender and M Raghunandan Rao, Haryana governor Bandaru Dattatreya, minister Ponguleti Srinivas Reddy and Congress leader Komatireddy Raj Gopal Reddy are among those expected to be questioned. CM Revanth and his family members, whose phones were reportedly under surveillance, may also be asked to depose. "Based on the phone numbers identified, police will reach out to those affected and collect detailed accounts of any harassment or damage-financial, legal, or personal-suffered due to the surveillance," sources familiar with the investigation told TOI. "Their statements will help build a watertight case," a source said.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court warns governments against invoking stringent laws as tool of harassment
Representative Image NEW DELHI: Cautioning govts not to invoke stringent laws like UP Gangsters Act "as an instrument of harassment or intimidation, particularly where political motivations may be at play", Supreme Court has quashed an FIR lodged under the Act against people taking part in a demonstration after a communal flare-up arising out of a controversial social media post targeting a religious group, reports Amit Anand Choudhary. It said the accused were arrested and booked under various provisions of IPC for vandalising a shop owned by a person who had put an "incendiary" social media post. Supreme Court said the accused were arrested and booked under provisions of IPC for vandalising a shop and there was no need for lodging a second FIR against them by invoking Gangsters Act six months after the incident. Noting the stringent law was invoked 13 days after an accused's daughter-in- law filed nomination for chairmanship of Nagar Panchayat Khargupur (UP), a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said, "This timing lends credence to their contention the Act may have been weaponised for extraneous considerations. " Allowing the plea of Lal Mohammad and other accused, the bench said the Act was enacted to combat organised gang-based crime and dismantle criminal syndicates, and invoking the law "based on a single incident of communal violence... is a significant departure from its legislative purpose". It said mere involvement of the accused in a demonstration after the communal flare-up, however serious, did not transform the participants into a 'gang' without evidence of organised and continuous criminal activity. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like What She Did Mid-Air Left Passengers Speechless medalmerit Learn More Undo "The constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquires even greater significance when extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions, such as UP Gangsters Act, is invoked. While the state has broad discretion in criminal prosecution, this discretion must be exercised judiciously, based on relevant considerations, and in conformity with the statutory purpose. The power conferred upon the state cannot be wielded as an instrument of harassment or intimidation, particularly where political motivations may be at play," said Justice Mehta, who penned the judgment. "It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that extraordinary penal provisions, particularly those that substantially abridge regular procedural safeguards, must be invoked based on evidence that meets a threshold of credibility and substantiality. The materials relied upon must establish a reasonable nexus between the accused and the alleged criminal activity, demonstrating actual probability of involvement rather than mere theoretical possibility. When a statute creates serious fetters on personal liberty, the evidentiary foundation for its invocation must be commensurately strong, supported by concrete, verifiable facts rather than vague assertions."
