Nainital HC sounds alarm on teen marriages, orders awareness drive
The court deems the trend alarming and fraught with serious consequences, including potential charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The court had previously summoned Uttrakhand's Secretary for Child Rights Welfare, Chandresh Yadav, who appeared before the bench on Thursday.
During the proceedings, the court directed Secretary Chandresh Kumar to prepare and present a comprehensive plan within two weeks. This plan aims to raise public awareness about the seriousness of the POCSO Act and address the growing issue of underage unions.
The plan also focusses at sensitising parents especially, about the gravity of the POCSO Act, thereby enabling them to guide their children effectively.
A division bench of the Nainital High Court, comprising Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Alok Mehra, observed during the hearing of one such case, stating, "This trend is alarming and needs attention."
The specific matter before the court involved a 19-year-old youth who, after marrying a girl of his age, sought court protection from her family. The bench noted with concern the increasing number of such cases where petitioners are often adolescents.
While acknowledging the legal right to choose one's life partner, the court underscored that the growing tendency of marriages among minors makes it difficult for them to develop a sense of responsibility at such a young age.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Mathura: HC rejects plea to refer ‘Shahi Idgah' as ‘disputed structure'
The Allahabad High Court on Thursday dismissed a petition that sought to replace the term 'Shahi Idgah Masjid' with 'disputed structure' in all future court proceedings in the ongoing cases related to the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute. The plea filed with prayer to direct the stenographer concerned to use the word 'disputed structure' in place of 'Shahi Idgah Mosque' in all further proceedings of the original suit and other related cases was supported with the affidavit of advocate Mahendra Pratap Singh who is plaintiff number 5. The prayer was opposed by the Muslim side, the court noted. 'A bare perusal of the pleading of the parties in the suit reveals that there is dispute between the parties with regard to the site where Shahi Masjid Idgah is existing. Parties have claimed their respective title over suit property. Therefore, it may be termed as property in dispute 15. In pleadings of the parties also, the structure in question is referred as Shahi Masjid Idgah and at this stage where hearing of the suits is yet to commence and even issues have not been framed, it is neither desirable nor expedient to issue any direction to stenographer, as prayed by the applicants, to refer Shahi Masjid Idgah in judgments and orders as 'disputed structure',' stated the bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, in its order. 'There is no dispute with regard to identity of property in suit, therefore, the prayer made in the application A-44 cannot be granted at this stage. The Court in its direction may refer to the property in dispute by appropriate words in further proceedings. application A- 44 is dismissed with above observations,' the bench added. The court also said the applicant (plaintiff number 5) had submitted that the Shahi Idgah mosque was constructed on the exact site historically recognised as the original birthplace of Lord Krishna, one of the most revered deities in Hinduism. The defendants, on the other hand, maintained that there is no provision that allows the plaintiff to dictate a stenographer of the court to refer Shahi Masjid Idgah as a 'disputed property', especially when such words are an attempt to retract from admission made by him and could also amount to an adverse inference against the defence in the suit. The application has been filed with an intent to abuse the process of law, they alleged, adding that the mosque has existed for over 400 years, a fact which has been sought to be undermined by the petition. Allowing the present application amounts to 'pre-determination' at an early stage in the suit that the Shahi Idgah Masjid is not a mosque, the court said. It is also cited the defendant's contention that the plaintiff is trying to introduce a new case 'through backdoor' to negate the admitted fact that Shahi Masjid Idgah is a mosque. Even the existence of the mosque is admitted by plaintiff number 5 in his affidavit and at this stage he will not be permitted to convert the existing mosque into a 'disputed structure' for an ulterior motive, it added. '…A decree of mandatory injunction has also been sought in present suit, with a prayer to get so called structure Shahi Masjid Idgah demolished within period prescribed by the Court and control thereof be handed over to authority prescribed by the Court. A decree of prohibitory injunction has also been sought against defendant no. 1 and 2 with regard to suit property of Katra Keshav Dev. The defendants have controverted plaint's allegations in the written statement and had admitted that Shahi Masjid Idgah was constructed in the year 1669 but denied the allegation that this is an unauthorized construction. The compromise dated 12.10.1968 was rightly filed by the parties in O.S. 43 of 1967 (Shri Krishan Janamsthan Seva Sangh vs. Shahi Masjid Idgah and others). The Shahi Masjid Idgah is a waqf property and has existed in the same state for 400-500 years. The suit is barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act ,1991, Section 92 C.P.C, under Order VII Rule 3 C.P.C and Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C,' the court said in its order. The bench fixed July 18 as the next date of hearing In January last year, the court had consolidated 15 suits related to the dispute on an application filed by the Hindu plaintiffs. The petitions seek removal of the mosque from the 13.37-acre complex, which it shares with the Katra Keshav Dev temple. Later, an application was moved to recall the order that consolidated all 15 suits filed by the Hindu petitioners. In October last year, the court rejected the application and said the cases have been consolidated 'in the interest of justice'.
India Gazette
2 hours ago
- India Gazette
NIA chargesheets another accused for promoting banned PFI's activities in Bihar
New Delhi [India], July 4 (ANI): The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has chargesheeted one more accused in a case relating to the anti-national activities of the banned Popular Front of India (PFI) in Bihar, the NIA said in a statement on Friday. Md. Sajjad Alam of East Champaran district, Bihar, is the 18th accused to be arrested and charged in the case RC-31/2022/NIA/DLI. In its supplementary chargesheet filed on Friday before the NIA Special Court, Patna, the anti-terror agency has charged the accused, who was arrested from IGI Airport at New Delhi on his arrival from Dubai (UAE) in January this year, under various sections of the IPC and UA(P) Act. Earlier, the NIA Special Court had issued an arrest warrant against Sajjad, an active PFI cadre. NIA Investigations had revealed that the accused was involved in channelising illegal funds from Dubai to PFI cadres in Bihar through a syndicate based in Karnataka and Kerala. The funds were used for furthering criminal/unlawful activities of PFI even after its ban by the Government of India. The PFI conspiracy, aimed at establishing Islamic rule in India by 2047, involved unlawful activities by the outfit's cadres in order to terrorise people and disrupt the country's peace and harmony by spreading religious enmity between different groups. The case was originally registered on 12th July 2022 at PS Phulwarisharif in Patna district against 26 persons under the IPC. NIA took up the investigation a few days later and invoked the UA (P) Act in the case and had earlier chargesheeted 17 accused persons, the NIA said. Further investigations in the case are continuing, it added. Earlier, in a significant development in its ongoing probe into the targeted murder of BJP Yuva Morcha member Praveen Nettaru, allegedly carried out by members of the banned Popular Front of India (PFI), the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on Friday arrested a prime accused who had been on the run for two years. The accused, Abdul Rahaman, who carried a bounty of Rs 4 lakh, was arrested by an NIA team upon his arrival from Qatar at Kannur International Airport. A total of four accused, including Rahaman and two other absconders, were chargesheeted by NIA in this case in April this year, taking the total chargesheeted in the case to had also declared rewards for information relating to six absconders. Rahaman was carrying a reward of Rs 4 lakh for this investigations had revealed that 'Rahaman had, on directions of PFI leadership, voluntarily harboured the main assailants and others involved in the case.''Rahaman had fled to Qatar after the attackers were arrested,' said the NIA in a statement. Nettaru was brutally killed with sharp weapons by PFI cadres and members on July 26, 2022 in Bellare village of Sullia Taluk in Karnataka's Dakshina Kannada district. The killing was part of a larger conspiracy aimed at striking terror among the people and unleashing communal hatred and unrest in the which had re-registered the case as of August 4, 2022, is trying to track down the remaining absconders. (ANI)
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Under BNSS, no bar on anticipatory bail in cases with death, life punishment: HC
1 2 3 Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court has held that with the enforcement of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) from July 1, 2024, the restriction on granting anticipatory bail in cases punishable with death or life imprisonment under section 438(6) of the CrPC (as was applicable in the state of UP), no longer applies. The court clarified that since Section 482 of BNSS, which now governs anticipatory bail, does not retain any such prohibition as was contained under section 438 (6) of the CrPC, there is no bar on granting anticipatory bail in cases punishable with death or life imprisonment. With this clarification, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, in its judgment dated July 3, allowed the second anticipatory bail application filed by one Abdul Hameed, who was summoned to face trial in a 2011 murder case but was not charge-sheeted during the investigation. The applicant's first anticipatory bail plea was rejected in Feb 2023 by a coordinate bench of the high court, in view of the bar contained under Section 438(6) CrPC. The bar inter alia on the grant of anticipatory bail for offences punishable with death or life imprisonment was introduced by the UP Amendment Act, 2019. After July 1, 2024, with the BNSS coming into force, the applicant filed a fresh application under Section 482 of the BNSS seeking anticipatory bail. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Scientists: Tinnitus? When tinnitus won't go away, do this (Watch) Hearing Magazine Undo The sessions court rejected it in March 2025, prompting him to move the high court. The applicant argued that the statutory bar under Section 438(6) CrPC no longer existed under BNSS, and the current application was filed under a completely different statutory regime. The state govt's counsel said that the applicant was trying to circumvent this statutory embargo by invoking Section 482 of the newly enacted BNSS, which does not contain a similar bar. It was submitted that since the offence was committed in 2011, and the charge sheet was filed under the CrPC regime, and even the cognizance was taken well prior to the BNSS coming into force, BNSS cannot retrospectively override the bar under Section 438(6) as applicable in UP. Having heard the counsels for both parties, the court said that the omission under Section 482 of BNSS, which governs anticipatory bail, regarding the bar under section 438(6) CrPC was conscious and deliberate, which indicated that the Parliament did not intend to continue the restriction introduced by the UP Amendment Act, 2019. "The absence of such prohibition in the new enactment assumes greater significance when viewed against the backdrop of the specific inclusion of this bar in the state amendment to CrPC," the court said. The court also noted that "the enactment of BNSS has created material changed circumstances, both in law and fact that justify fresh consideration on merits. The removal of the statutory bar contained in Section 438(6) of CrPC represents a fundamental change in the legal framework that obliterates the foundation upon which the first application was rejected". The court said that the first application was dismissed on maintainability and not merits, and since the legislative landscape had changed, the present application was maintainable. In its judgment dated July 3, the court cited a high court order in a case of 2024 to note that the present application filed after July 1, 2024, falls within the ambit of BNSS, and the applicant is entitled to benefit from more liberal provisions thereof.
