Temple Authorities, Priests & Venue Managers Facilitating Child Marriage Liable U/S 11 Prohibition Of Child Marriage Act: Karnataka High Court

The Court observed that the statutory scheme under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, particularly Section 11, contemplates accountability for all persons who promote, permit, or fail to prevent the solemnisation of a child marriage.

The Court was hearing a petition seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings arising from the marriage of a 16-year-old girl to a 27-year-old man, which had been solemnised at a temple. The petitioners included the husband, parents of the girl, and other family members against whom proceedings had been initiated under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

A Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while dismissing the petition, observed: “The pernicious practice of child marriage must be decisively uprooted. It must also be observed that responsibility does not rest solely on contracting parties. Where a marriage is solemnised in a temple, the management of a temple and the officiating priest who performs the ceremony may fall within the sweep of liability under the Act. Where the marriage is conducted in a marriage hall, or other venue, its management and facilitators cannot claim insulation. The statutory design, particularly under Section 11, contemplates accountability for those who promote, permit or fail to prevent such solemnisation.”

Background

The case arose from a suo motu complaint lodged by the Child Development Project Officer alleging that a minor girl had been married to an adult man at a temple. According to the complaint, the girl was 16 years old at the time of the marriage, while the groom was 27 years old.

Following the investigation, the police registered a case under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and filed a charge sheet. The trial court thereafter took cognisance of the offences and initiated criminal proceedings against the accused persons.

At this stage, the accused approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the proceedings.

Before the Court, the petitioners contended that the marriage had taken place during the COVID-19 pandemic when the families feared uncertainty about life. They also argued that the couple were presently living together happily and that the marriage had subsequently been registered after the girl attained majority. On this basis, it was urged that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be unnecessary as the trial would ultimately result in an acquittal.

The State opposed the petition, contending that the admitted facts clearly disclosed the commission of offences under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and that the matter was presently at the stage of hearing before charge.

Court’s Observation

The Karnataka High Court observed that the core facts of the case were undisputed: the marriage had taken place when the girl was 16 years old and the groom was an adult. On these admitted facts, the Court held that the offence of child marriage was clearly made out under the statutory framework.

Statutory Scheme of The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act

The Court examined the statutory provisions under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Act and noted that they constitute a comprehensive framework designed to prevent and penalise child marriage.

Section 9 penalises an adult male who contracts a marriage with a child, making the act itself punishable regardless of subsequent developments in the marital relationship.

Section 10 expands liability to include those who perform, conduct, direct or abet the marriage. The Court observed that the priest who performs the ceremony, relatives who arrange the marriage, and organisers who facilitate it may all fall within the ambit of this provision.

Section 11 further widens the scope of liability by penalising persons who promote, permit or negligently fail to prevent a child marriage. This includes parents, guardians and any person having charge of the minor.

The Court noted that the statute introduces a presumption under Section 11(2) that a person having charge of a minor has negligently failed to prevent the marriage, unless proved otherwise.

According to the Court, these provisions collectively reflect the legislative intent that child marriage is not merely a private family arrangement but a social wrong requiring accountability at every level of participation.

Ignorance of the Law No Defence

The Court rejected the petitioners’ plea that they were ignorant of the law and had conducted the marriage during the uncertainty of the pandemic.

It held that ignorance of the law cannot be accepted as a defence, particularly where the accused persons were adults and fully aware of the age of the girl at the time of marriage.

The Court further observed that the submission that the couple were currently living harmoniously does not erase the illegality committed at the time the marriage was solemnised.

Criminal liability, the Court held, is determined at the moment the offence is committed and cannot be neutralised by subsequent domestic circumstances.

Child Marriage As a Violation of Fundamental Rights

The Court referred to judicial observations highlighting the serious consequences of child marriage, including denial of education, health threats, vulnerability to exploitation and long-term social and economic disadvantages.

It was observed that a girl married before the age of 18 does not merely enter matrimony but effectively loses opportunities for education and personal development.

If courts were to condone such conduct merely because the parties later reconcile or live together peacefully, the objective of eradicating child marriage would remain unattainable.

Liability Of Priests and Venue Managers

The Court further clarified that liability under the Act is not confined to the contracting parties.

It was observed that where a child marriage is solemnised in a temple, both the officiating priest and the temple management may fall within the scope of liability under Section 11. Similarly, when such marriages are conducted in marriage halls or other venues, the management of those establishments cannot claim immunity.

According to the Court, the statutory framework deliberately extends liability to anyone who promotes, permits or fails to prevent the solemnisation of a child marriage.

Conclusion

Holding that the admitted facts clearly disclosed offences under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, the Court found no merit in the petition seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. The petition was accordingly dismissed, and the trial was allowed to proceed in accordance with the law.

The Court also emphasised the need for preventive measures to curb child marriage. It directed that awareness of criminal liability should be displayed at places where marriages are commonly performed.

Temple authorities, marriage halls and similar establishments were directed to display notices stating that the marriage of a person below the age of 18 is prohibited by law and attracts criminal consequences.

The Court also called upon the print and electronic media to play an active role in raising awareness about the prohibition of child marriage.

“The law protects childhood, so that it may blossom into informed adulthood. This Court will not permit this protection to be diminished”, the Court concluded.

Cause Title: Sri Manjunatha N & Ors v. The State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:14634)

Appearances

Petitioners: U. Sadakath, Advocate

Respondent: B. N. Jagadeesha, Additional State Public Prosecutor

Click here to read/download Judgment