Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13654-DB Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1791 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ashutosh Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rizwanul Haque Ansari,Santi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners prayed for issuance of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to disturb the happy and peaceful life of the petitioners and not to harass the petitioners. 3. Petitioners claim to have married each other of their own volition and also claim that on the date of their marriage i.e. 10.02.2025, they were of marriageable age. Petitioners have annexed High School Marksheet as Annexure no.2 in this regard as proof of age, wherein date of birth of petitioner no.1 and 2 is 01.02.2007 and 10.06.1996, respectively. He further says that there is no F.I.R. against the petitioners and they are not wanted in any criminal case yet the police is harassing them at the behest of family members who are not agreeable to the marriage. Therefore, this petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to interfere in peaceful married life of the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further drawn attention of this court towards a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hardev Singh vs. Harpreet Kaur and others passed in Criminal Appeal No.1331 of 2013, wherein attention has been drawn towards paragraph nos. 3.8 and 3.9 and the same are quoted herein below:- "3.8. Section 9 of the 2006 Act must be viewed in the backdrop of this gender dimension to the practice of child marriage. Thus, it can be inferred that the intention behind punishing only male adults contracting child marriages is to protect minor young girls from the negative consequences thereof by creating a deterrent effect for prospective grooms who, by virtue of being above eighteen years of age are deemed to have the capacity to opt out of such marriages. Nowhere from the discussion above can it be gleaned that the legislators sought to punish a male between the age of eighteen and twentyone years who contracts into a marriage with a female adult. Instead, the 2006 Act affords such a male, who is a child for the purposes of the Act, the remedy of getting the marriage annulled by proceeding under Section 3 of the 2006 Act. Hence, male adults between the age of eighteen and twentyone years of age, who marry female adults cannot be brought under the ambit of Section 9, as this is not the mischief that the provision seeks to remedy. 3.9. Our views are supported by the marginal note of Section 9, which reads “Punishment for male adult marrying a child”. It is well settled that where any ambiguity exists with regard to the interpretation of a legislative provision, the marginal note can be used in aid of construction, having regard to the object of the legislation and the mischief it seeks to remedy. In view of the above, the words “male adult above eighteen years of age, contracts a child marriage” in Section 9 of the 2006 Act should be read as “male adult above eighteen years of age marries a child”." 5. In view of the above, it is provided that if the petitioners have married each other and are living together, were of marriageable age on the date of their marriage and they are not wanted in any criminal case then the police shall not unnecessarily interfere in their peaceful married life. 6. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not entered into nor adjudicated the age of the petitioners nor veracity/validity of the alleged marriage. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. (Brij Raj Singh, J.) (Vivek Chaudhary, J.) Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Arnima Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench