4 hrs ago
Delhi High Court Says Muslim Law Cannot Override Child Protections
The Delhi High Court considered a case involving a 16-year-old girl and an adult man she had married.
The couple said they had married willingly and that their relationship was consensual.
The girl became pregnant and went to a government hospital when she was about eight months pregnant.
Hospital staff checked her school records and found that she was under 18.
They informed the police, who registered a case against the man.
The couple asked the court to cancel that case.
The court said children under 18 are protected by special laws, even if they agree to a relationship or are married.
It also said Muslim personal law cannot override those child-protection laws.
The girl later delivered a stillborn child, and the court expressed sympathy but said that did not make the police case unlawful.
The Delhi High Court refused to quash an FIR against a man accused of marrying and impregnating a 16-year-old girl.
Justice Sanjeev Narula ruled that sexual consent is legally recognized only from age 18, regardless of marriage or personal consent.
The court said Muslim personal law cannot create an exception to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act or the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The couple married in December 2024 with family consent and maintained that their relationship was voluntary.
Police registered the FIR after a government hospital identified the girl as under 18; she later delivered a stillborn child.
- Who
- The Delhi High Court, Justice Sanjeev Narula, a Muslim couple, and the police were involved.
- What
- The court refused to quash an FIR against an adult man accused of having sexual relations with his 16-year-old wife.
- Where
- The matter was heard by the Delhi High Court after the girl visited a government hospital.
- When
- The couple married in December 2024; the girl visited a hospital in May, the fetus died in June, and the order was issued on September 23.
- Why
- The court held that people under 18 remain protected by the POCSO Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, regardless of marriage or consent.
Petitioners' Argument
Court's Ruling
Effect of Muslim personal law
Petitioners' Argument
The couple argued that under Muslim personal law, a person who has attained puberty can validly contract marriage, so their consensual marital relationship should not lead to criminal charges.
Court's Ruling
The court held that personal law may determine whether a marriage exists and its civil consequences, but cannot create an exception to criminal laws protecting children.
Consent and marriage
Petitioners' Argument
The couple consistently said the marriage and physical relationship were voluntary, and the girl continued to support her husband and said she had not been wronged.
Court's Ruling
The court said the girl's views deserved to be heard with seriousness and dignity, but consent given below age 18 and a preceding marriage do not take the conduct outside the POCSO Act or the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
FIR and circumstances
Petitioners' Argument
The petitioners sought cancellation of the FIR, relying on the marriage, family consent, and the couple's account of their relationship.
Court's Ruling
The court said sympathy over the loss of the child could not retrospectively make registration of a cognisable offence unlawful, and refused to quash the FIR.
Key facts
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Judge
- Justice Sanjeev Narula
- Girl's age
- 16 at the relevant time
- Marriage
- December 2024, with consent from both families
- Police case
- An FIR was registered under the POCSO Act after the hospital alerted police.
- Legal age threshold
- The court said sexual intercourse with a person under 18 is covered by the relevant child-protection provisions, regardless of consent.
- Pregnancy outcome
- The fetus died in June, and the girl delivered a stillborn child.
Quotes
Delhi High Court
The court ruling delivered by Justice Sanjeev Narula.
“Neither freedom, however, gives an adult a right to claim immunity from a generally applicable penal law enacted to protect children. Constitutional liberty protects choice; it does not create an exception to POCSO or the BNS.”
indianexpress.com
“A marriage claimed to be valid under Muslim personal law cannot, by reason of that status alone, confer immunity from POCSO or the BNS for sexual intercourse with a wife who was below eighteen at the relevant time.”
indianexpress.com
Sources
Related news
Delhi High Court Says Marriage Cannot Exempt Sex With Minors
Kerala High Court Says POCSO Applies to Minor Marriage
Court Frees Ghaziabad Woman, Upholds Choice to Live With Husband
Delhi High Court Rules POCSO Cases Cannot Be Settled
Allahabad High Court Upholds Adult’s Choice of Life Partner
Gujarat court sentences man 20 years in POCSO case
Air Pistols Spark Debate Over Women’s Safety and Self-Defence
Nishikant Dubey Demands Apology From Ex-Finance Secretary Garg
J&K Teacher Dismissed After Minor Student’s Pregnancy, Death
CBI Alleges CREST Funds Bought Goa Property
