Trial Court's Directive for Criminal Case Registration Under POCSO Act Exceeded Jurisdiction, Says High Court
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has set aside a trial court's judgment that dismissed a divorce petition by mutual consent and directed the registration of a criminal case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The High Court found the trial court's actions to be beyond its jurisdiction and a violation of natural justice principles.
The case involved a matrimonial dispute between Goyram Barman and Madhumita Barman, where both parties filed for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The trial court, however, dismissed the application, citing the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and directed the registration of a criminal case under the POCSO Act based on its interpretation of the events, even though neither party alleged any such offence.
The Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya emphasized that the trial court had overstepped its jurisdiction. The High Court clarified that the court's role in a mutual consent divorce case is limited to verifying whether the conditions under Section 13B are met and does not extend to adjudicating the validity of the marriage under other laws unless raised by the parties.
The High Court further noted that the trial court's directive to treat its order as an information under Section 19 of the POCSO Act and register a case was not justified, as no offence was alleged in the case records. Moreover, the High Court highlighted that the trial judge, functioning as a POCSO court, violated natural justice by effectively becoming both complainant and adjudicator.
Consequently, the High Court remanded the case back to the trial court for fresh adjudication, strictly within the parameters of the Hindu Marriage Act, and ordered the revocation of any actions taken pursuant to the trial court's impugned judgment.
Bottom line:-
A trial court adjudicating a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, cannot exceed its jurisdiction by directing the registration of a criminal case under the POCSO Act based on its own interpretation of events, particularly when no such offence is alleged by the parties.
Statutory provision(s): Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13B, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 19, Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 219.
Goyram Barman v. Madhumita Barman, (Calcutta)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2944624
