Court ordered segregation under POCSO: ‘I’ll work hard for 3 years, earn enough, till then, separation is good’

The 19-yr-old spent four months in jail, through which he kept a daily diary. (File)

THEIRS is a love story that has survived jail, separation — and now the law. He was 16, she was 12 when they met. He is 19 now and she is 15, still covered by the POCSO Act, making all sexual relations between the two illegal. But for the second time now, a court has upheld their affair, giving it legal sanction. Discharged by a sessions court on August 9 on offences under POCSO, Neeraj has now moved away from his East Delhi Trilokpuri residence, to a relative’s house in Jaipur, to wait out the three years till the girl he says he has married turns 18. He is trying to get the job of a peon, and hopes to buy some land and build a house for the two of them.

In the bylanes of Trilokpuri, everyone knows the house, in a three-storey building, that lies at the heart of the love story. Bharosi Lal, 45, refuses to talk about his son, but mother Parmeshwari Devi tells everyone who asks, “What happened to Neeraj was very wrong.”

Originally from Uttarakhand, the family came to Delhi in early 2000, and Bharosi joined work as a cook at a dhaba. Later, he started selling noodles from a stall in the evenings, where Neeraj would assist him. Parmeshwari worked as a cook in houses.

In 2014, Neeraj saw the girl for the first time. “She used to pass by on way to school,” says Neeraj. The girl’s family came to know about their affair in November last year, and reportedly thrashed her to make her stay away from him. Neeraj says that on December 9, 2016, the two of them got married, and six days later, eloped.
The girl’s father lodged a missing complaint and a case of kidnapping. In turn, Parmeshwari went to the Delhi Police headquarters, and sought safety of the couple. Says Parmeshwari, “We are Paharis and the girl’s family is Valmiki. We are in a minority here.”

As the couple remained missing, in February 2017, the girl’s family went to the Delhi Commission for Women for help.

Neeraj says the two of them were living in Mamura village of Noida, at a rent of Rs 2,800 a month. “I got work as a helper in an export house. We were happy. But we realised we could not go on living like this as my family was being threatened. I spoke to my mother to help us legally,” says the 19-year-old.

In March, Neeraj’s family filed a petition in the Delhi High Court seeking State protection for him and the girl. On March 9, the court ruled that while the girl being a minor could not be allowed to remain with the boy, she was clearly eager to stay with him. Neeraj’s lawyer Ashvini Mishra says the girl was very “bold”, and told Justice Vipin Sanghi, ‘Pyar kiya to darna kya’. “Everyone was stunned.”

However, as the two couldn’t provide any proof of their marriage sought by the court, and since Neeraj was not yet 21, her custody was not granted to him. Instead, Justice Sanghi ordered that the girl be sent to a government home, and said she could be permitted to meet the boy.

But even before the girl could be placed at the home, matters were complicated when a medical test showed the girl had sexual relations with him.

As the girl refused to return to her parents’ home, on March 28, Justice Sanghi issued another order. “Once in every fortnight at predetermined time, mutually agreed between the petitioner number 1 (boy) and the petitioner number 2 (girl)… (they) would be able to meet and spend time together in a public park situated close to the residence of petitioner number 2. The fathers of both the petitioners will remain in the park, but not within hearing distance of the parties.”

The judge also directed that the girl’s father would not take her out of Delhi or get her married to another without her consent.

The court ruled out rape noting that the girl had given a statement before a magistrate and also told the court she had gone with Neeraj on her own.

On April 10, the matter took another twist when there was a scare that the two had fled. The girl’s family went to the police, and it slapped charges under IPC 376 (rape) and POCSO against Neeraj, in addition to the earlier kidnapping charges. Justifying his arrest despite a court order, a police officer says, “The girl was a minor and her family had repeatedly approached us. The high court order was contradictory in nature.”

In his August 9 order discharging Neeraj, Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer of POCSO court Ashwini Kumar Sarpal said no case of rape or offence under POCSO had been made out against him. Like the high court, it also held that the girl’s statement to police saying Neeraj had forced her into a relationship “cannot be relied upon”, as it was contradictory to the the statement made by her on March 14 in front of a magistrate.

The court also felt that it could not be said that the victim did not have “sufficient maturity” to understand her good or bad merely because she was less than 15 years of age. “The victim herself appeared in the High Court… and thereafter it even allowed the accused and victim to meet each other once in a fortnight.”
Now at her home, the 15-year-old says, “When we fell in love I had imagined it would be hard, but not to this extent.” It was her idea to run away, she adds. “When the High Court judge called me to his chamber, I told him it was I who took him away, not him.” It has been six months since they met, on April 12, at the Kalyanpuri Police Station.

The investigating officer in the case, Suman Lata, says the issue is mired in “contradictions”, due to the grey area of rape not being considered in a marriage if the bride is above 15, which was recently overturned. While the Supreme Court has now said that sex with wife below 18 is rape, the order doesn’t have retrospective effect and hence doesn’t apply to Neeraj and the girl. Speaking on the phone from Jaipur, Neeraj says he doesn’t want to take any more risks, despite the court ruling in their favour. “I will work hard for three years and earn enough. Till then, separation is good.”