-Entry in Nikah Nama regarding age of bride/petitioner was recorded as "almost sixteen (16) years"---High Court observed that it was common practice in the society that whenever somebody's age was mentioned in approximate figures, it tended to show that he /she was yet to achieve that age and it was always treated as less than the age mentioned therein.

 P L D 2021 Lahore 783

(a) Child Marriage Restraint Act (XIX of 1929)---

----Ss. 2(a), 9 & 10---Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 20---Child marriage---Trial, forum of---Application of petitioners(minor girl and her mother) was dismissed by respondent (Chairman Union Council) after holding inquiry---Held, that in terms of S.9 of Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 ('the Act 1929'),the cognizance of any offence under the Act 1929 had been made subject to a complaint by the union council concerned---Obligatory for a union council to place a formal complaint against the persons violating the provisions of the Act 1929 before the Family Court exercising the powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class enabling such Court to conduct the trial of the offender under the Act 1929, in accordance with the provisions of Family Courts Act, 1964---High Court directed the respondent (Chairman Union Council) to proceed against the respondents---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

(b) Child Marriage Restraint Act (XIX of 1929)---

----Ss. 2(a), 9 & 10---Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 20---Child marriage---Offenders---Scope---Held, that Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 ('the Act 1929') categorized three kinds of persons as offenders; firstly, a male above eighteen years of age who contracted child marriage; secondly, person who performed, conducted or directed any child marriage; and thirdly, where a minor contracted a child marriage, any person having charge of the minor, whether as parent or guardian or in any other capacity, lawful or unlawful, who did any act to promote the marriage or permit it to be solemnized or negligently failed to prevent it from being solemnized---Constitutional petition was allowed.

(c) Child Marriage Restraint Act (XIX of 1929)---

----S. 2(a)---Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 20---Child marriage---Trial---Age, determination of---Record (certificates issued by NADRA and concerned union council) revealed that age of the petitioner/girl was less than sixteen years of age at the relevant time---Entry in Nikah Nama regarding age of bride/petitioner was recorded as "almost sixteen (16) years"---High Court observed that it was common practice in the society that whenever somebody's age was mentioned in approximate figures, it tended to show that he /she was yet to achieve that age and it was always treated as less than the age mentioned therein.

(d) Child Marriage Restraint Act (XIX of 1929)---

----Ss. 2(a), 9 & 10---Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 20---Child marriage---Preliminary inquiry---Union Council, jurisdiction of---Application of petitioners (minor girl and her mother) was dismissed by respondent (Chairman Union Council) after holding inquiry---Held, that holding of inquiry or probe was not within domain of union council(respondent)---Rather the same was within the domain of the Family Court, taking cognizance on the complain, to hold a preliminary inquiry under S.10 of Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929---Any proceedings conducted by union council (respondent) in pursuance to application of the petitioners were coram non judice---High Court directed the respondent (Chairman Union Council) to proceed against the respondents---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

(e) Child Marriage Restraint Act (XIX of 1929)---

----Ss. 2(a), 9 & 10---Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 20---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 22-A & 22-B---Child marriage---Trial---Litigation between the parties was pending before the Family Court and an order was also passed in petitions filed under Ss.22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C---Application of petitioners (minor girl and her mother) was dismissed by respondent (Chairman Union Council) after holding inquiry---Held, that the proceedings under Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 ('the Act 1929') were independent in nature---Pendency of any suit could not be pleaded as hurdle in the way of such proceedings---Civil and criminal proceedings could proceed side by side---Ex-officio Justice of Peace, in the present case, had dismissed petitions under Ss.22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C on the ground that in terms of S.9 of the Act, 1929, there was a prohibition in taking cognizance of the offence under the Act, 1929, so said order could also not be an impediment in exercising constitutional petition---Even otherwise, no remedy was provided under the Act, 1929 against the order passed by the Chairman Union Council (respondent)---High Court directed the respondent (Chairman Union Council ) to proceed in terms of S.9 of the Act, 1929 against the private respondents---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.