HC orders police protection for minor girl fearing marriage

Observing that child marriages are a violation of human rights, the Madras High Court today directed police to provide necessary protection to a boy and his minor sister if their father violates the undertaking that he would not marry off his daughter.
Justice S Vimala of the Madurai bench passed the order on a petition by one S Venkatesan of Guziliamparai in Dindigul district who charged his fatherwith trying to marry off his sister against her wishes.
"The child marriage prohibition officer should create awareness regarding the evil of child marriages and sensitise the community on the issue of child marriages," the judge said.

She told the father he was not expected to conduct the marriage ofhis daughter till she attains marriageable age.
The petitionersubmitted that their father was trying to marry off his sister to their cousin against her wishes.
The Judge observed that child marriage was a violation of children's human rights, which is prohibited by Indian and international laws.

However, it continued to rob millions of girlsunder 18 years of age, of their childhood, she added.
Education was essential for girls to be able to make informed decisions about their future. But child marriage forced them out of education and threw them into a life filled with risks and danger, the judge said.

The woman's plea before the trial court was contested by
the Delhi government and medial superintendent of the hospital who said that she had misrepresented about being the legally wedded wife of the man.
The court, in its verdict, noted that the trial court in its judgement had referred to the earlier order passed by the high court in which it was held that issuance of succession certificate in favour of the petitioner without impleading the legal heirs of the man was of hardly any value.
"It is settled legal position that in second appeal, high court cannot set aside concurrent finding of fact given by the courts below. The second appeal can be entertained only if a substantial question of law is raised. The rationale behind is that appreciation and reappreciation of an evidence must come to an end with the first appeal," the court noted.

"It has been consistent view that high court has no jurisdiction to entertain second appeal merely on the plea that another view is possible on appreciation of relevant evidence available on record," it said.