In this case, the father of a girl had lodged an FIR under Section 363 and 366 I.P.C., alleging that a boy had enticed away his daughter and he apprehended that either she had been sold or she had been killed.

After the FIR was lodged, the Daughter (Pratiksha Singh) and her husband, Karan Maurya jointly moved to HC seeking quashing of the FIR on the ground that the victim/daughter and the second petitioner/husband have fallen in love and have solemnized their marriage and are living together.

After that, a counter affidavit was filed by the father of the girl, in which the only ground urged to oppose the prayer was that the marriage itself is not legal, since the bridegroom had not completed the age of 21 years at the time of marriage.

Thereafter, the Court perused Section 11 (Void marriages) to note that while defining void marriages, the legislature had specifically omitted to mention Clause (iii) of Section 5 as one of the grounds for violation of which the marriage itself is rendered void.

Regarding the allegations of kidnapping leveled by the father of the girl against the accused husband, the Court opined that in the light of the facts of the case, Section 363 and 366 would not be made out, once it is shown that the victim has joined the company of the accused out of her own free will and she has neither been kidnapped nor abducted or enticed to compel into the marriage.