Ratnarashi the mother of two kids though cleared the qualifying civil services examination was denied a government job stating that she isn’t qualified. Reasons ? A forced marriage when she was 14, a minor.  That she has violated the Child Marriage Act. Though she is divorced  now and needs the job at all cost to lead a dignified life with two kids to maintain ,the court interpreted the Child Marriage Act  literally and  her present state of a major and a mother with two kids has been dumped. The intent and purpose of the Act is to prevent the social disgrace and cruelty on women through child marriage .Here is case of a women who fought against a forced marriage and got the divorce and passed the examination for the job through determination and will against all odds but the court has seen no merit in all these.

What message the court is sending. If you have violated the Chiild Marriage Act you have violated the law hence no government job as the rule indicates, period. But how could an  inexperienced vulnerable  village girl of 14 effectively oppose the might of parents and relatives who arrange such marriages. It’s only possible when these girls grow up and muster courage and strength to fight back if the relationship in the marriage sour. If the law was enacted to prevent child marriage , the parents who indulge in such violations must be equally punished, even if it was found subsequently as in Ratnarashi case. Why should an individual like Ratnarashi be punished for no violative act on her own. Since the Contract Act too views agreements with minor  unenforceable, it is imperative that the courts interpret , minor ‘s  forced marriage is not a violation of the Act by the minor himself or herself  but by the majors who  are involved with the arrangement of  such marriages.

Atrocities on women is not taken lightly by the laws of the day. Courts  must also help  and facilitate women in distress to empower them to lead an independent dignified life. Ratnarashi’s plight sincerely deserves a different look. Laws are enacted to serve the human cause. Here we don’t see that face of law in Ratnatashi case. Courts must show us that human. courageous, progressive, modern, independent spirited face to serve the different needs of society. Ratnarashi is crying for help. Courts must serve her needs urgently.