Prayagraj. The Allahabad High Court said in an order that Sharia and Muslim personal law, which considers puberty (adolescence) as the appropriate age for a girl to marry, clearly violates the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and the POCSO Act.
Justice J.J. The division bench comprising Justice Munir and Justice Achal Sachdev further remarked in its judgment that the age for marriage is the same for every citizen of the country, regardless of religion, as made clear by the Child Marriage Prohibition Act.
The court passed this order while dismissing a writ petition filed by 19 persons, seeking quashing of the FIR registered against them for allegedly attacking police and Child Line rescue teams and obstructing their work. A rescue team was attacked when it intervened to stop the upcoming marriage of a 16-year-old Muslim girl in Bulandshahr district. FIR regarding this incident has been lodged in Police Station – Kakor, Bulandshahr.
Seeking relief in the case, petitioners Ruby and others argued that as per Sharia law applicable to Muslims, a girl becomes eligible for marriage after she attains the age of puberty (generally considered to be 15 years).
He claimed that the PCM (Prohibition of Child Marriage Act) 2006 would not affect the personal law relating to marriage of the petitioners.
However, the bench rejected this argument, as it said that no personal law can nullify the prohibition of child marriage brought by the PCMA or the statutory effects of the POCSO Act. The bench said that if marriage of a person below 18 years of age is allowed, there would be a clear violation of the POCSO Act.
The High Court said “The PCMA and POCSO Acts are laws which are based on public health and national policy in this regard. They contain scientific understanding which has been legislatively transformed into prohibitory laws and it is not possible for anyone to escape from them”. Acknowledging the differences of opinion among various High Courts on the issue, the bench said it “completely agrees” with the Kerala High Court’s contention that no personal law can strike down the ban on child marriage.
The bench also referred to the Supreme Court’s 2025 order, in which the apex court had expressed doubt on the issue (whether personal laws can override the Child Marriage Act) until the passage of the Child Marriage Prohibition (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which was introduced in Parliament on December 21, 2021. However, the Division Bench further noted that the said Bill had lapsed upon the dissolution of the 17th Lok Sabha, and no official judgment has been delivered by the Supreme Court on the issue till date. Looking into the specific facts of the case, the Court found that there was a systematic attempt by the parents and community of the minor to get her married in violation of the PCMA.
The Court appreciated the police and the Child Line team for taking immediate action to rescue the victim, and said that they were discharging their duties honestly to prevent possible violation of the POCSO Act. Refusing to quash the FIR, which detailed how the rescue team was mistreated, threatened and forced to save their lives from the attack by the petitioners.
The court said the victim was forcibly taken away from their care and custody, until she was eventually rescued. This is certainly a case where obstruction of a government servant in the performance of his duties is prima facie proven. The other crimes that have come to light also require a thorough investigation. As a result, the High Court dismissed the petition, finding no solid ground to interfere with the FIR.
Comments are closed.