Describing as 'peak of chauvinism and height of atrocity and discrimination' a man's attitude in shelving his marriage to a teenaged girl 20 years younger than him after coming to know her parents died of AIDS, the Madras High Cour Court bench today directed him to pay Rs 75,000 as costs to her.
"A lady is neither a property to be sold in the name of wedding nor to be rejected as a sub-standard goods," Justice N Kirubakaran said disposing a petition filed by one P Sevugan.
The judge pointed out that it was only after the court intervened that police at Tirupattur acted on the 18-year-old teenaged girl's complaint against the 38-year-old man accusing him of falsely disowning her alleging she was suffering from AIDS.
The case was registered under IPC 417, 506(i) and Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act.
The court noted the man had not agreed to marry her even after she produced a medical certificate, stating she did not have AIDS. This showed he was not interested in marrying her.
The court had to also seek the petitioner's property details by directing the Village Administrative Officer to appear in the court and file a report, which stated he had Rs 2.26 lakh in movable and immovable assets.
The judge regretted police were forced to act against the petitioner though cases were registered under non-bailable sections. The petitioner had not come to any settlement even after the court advised him to do so through his counsel.
The Judge said the petitioner should have enquired about the family background before getting engaged. "Right got accrued to both the parties after the betrothal and there should be an acceptable ground for cancellation of betrothal"
Besides, the girl had been asked to undergo AIDS test. None had the right to compel a woman to undergo any test. But the man had exploited the girl's poverty and she was forced to undergo it. As the test was clear, he should have married her.
The Judge also said the gap in their ages was so wide it could not make any couple lead a normal life. "Unfortunately in our society, in many cases women are not even consulted and no freedom is given to the women to decide about their marriage. This case is proof of the above fact."
The court said the petitioner had unilaterally dropped the marriage and the reason for doing so was not justifiable.
The judge said injustice had been done to the girl who is poor and she needed to be consoled, reassured and compensated and directed the man to pay her Rs 75,000 as costs.
The bench said it expects her relatives to find a suitable groom for the girl and disposed of the case.
