MUMBAI: In a case of an advocate, who had ‘married’ a minor almost 40 years younger than him, four years ago, the

has said that on her turning a major and “ready to cohabit with him as his legally wedded wife, the otherwise voidable marriage, becomes valid."

The HC had on May 2, as reported first by the TOI, had directed that the lawyer, transfer 11 acres—including six offered to her earlier--to her name under the 7/12 land record extracts and stayed the trial of the lawyer, now 56-years-old. The girl, aged about 14 and half in 2015 when they married after the lawyer offered to her grandparents that he would transfer six acres of land, had filed an

in December 2017 accusing him of rape, aggravated sexual assault and violation of the Child Marriage Act. The FIR also accused her 80-year-old grandfather, grandmother and two absconding uncles.

In India, a girl has to be 18-year-old for a valid marriage under the

. The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act of 2006 makes every ‘child marriage—in which one party is a child, girl less than 18 years, boy, less than 21—voidable, but at the instance of such minor and no later than than two years of turning a major. A ‘voidable’ marriage, on a plea made, is annulled and held void by the court.

A day before being granted bail, on September 28, 2018, and 10 days after she turned 18, an adult by law, he filed for quashing of the criminal case against him, as did the grandparents.

The bench opined that ultimately she would "suffer if the case is allowed to go on as she is now married and no one in the society would accept her as a wife." It added, "We think at this stage securing her future is of prime importance."

The HC directed that the land once in her name not be transferred to anyone else during pendency of his petition.

The HC also said it was "Specifically made clear that this order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the same shall not be treated as precedent."

The court posted the matter for hearing on February 10, 2020 "In order to enable us to observe the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner No.1 (lawyer) towards respondent No.2 (girl)." It accepted the lawyer’s undertaking to take care of her, including her education. She has completed XIth standard and will pursue her studies.

The lawyer who had been practicing in the high court was arrested and later released on bail last September, after she turned 18 years old and affirmed that she was keen to "settle the dispute amicably" and didn’t object to his bail. He was behind bars for 10 months.

The lawyer, who had lost in wife, also a lawyer, in 2014, had married the girl in April 2015, as a widower.

The girl said she "consents" to his quashing plea as she had filed the FIR "in anger and misunderstanding." In court, when the bench of Justices Ranjit More and Bharati Dangre had questioned her, she stood by her affidavit that said, she wanted to reside with him "quietly as his wife."