Back
Rules Muslim Cannot Shield Sex With Minor Wife From POCSO
In a significant ruling, the has firmly held that a marriage solemnized under Muslim does not provide immunity from prosecution under the or the when the wife is below 18 years of age. Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR against a man who married a 16-year-old girl, emphasizing that override .
The Facts
The case involved a couple who married in when the wife was 16 years and 3 months old, while the husband was nearly 28. They lived together, and the wife became pregnant. When she visited a government hospital, her age was discovered, leading to the registration of an FIR under and . The wife consistently stated that the marriage was voluntary and with family consent, and she supported the husband during his bail proceedings.
The Legal Challenge
The petitioners argued that under Muslim , a girl who has attained puberty (presumed at 15) is competent to marry, and therefore the marriage was valid. They contended that the subsequent sexual relationship could not attract criminal liability. They relied on precedents like and , which they claimed supported the proposition that a valid marriage under shields from POCSO.
Court's Reasoning: Why Cannot Override
Justice Narula drew a critical distinction between the civil validity of a marriage and the criminal consequences of sexual intercourse with a minor. The court observed that even if the marriage is assumed valid under , it cannot create an exception to POCSO or BNS, which fix the at 18. The judgment noted:
“A marriage claimed to be valid under Muslim 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. Any other view would create, through judicial decision, an exception which Parliament has expressly excluded.”
The court emphasized that POCSO defines a “child” as any person below 18, and similarly treats sexual intercourse with a woman below 18 as rape, with the only applying if the wife is not under 18. The consent of a minor is irrelevant under these statutes.
Key Observations
The judgment contains several sharp observations reinforcing the primacy of child protection laws:
- “Put simply, marriage does not advance a child’s age. A person who is sixteen before the ceremony remains sixteen afterwards. For POCSO and , that fact is determinative of the to the sexual act.”
- “The of eighteen serves another purpose as well. Questions of consent in relationships involving children are not always reducible to overt physical force. Parliament chose a so that criminal protection does not depend upon a retrospective judicial assessment of whether a particular child was ‘mature enough’.”
- “The POCSO framework would be substantially weakened if an adult could answer a prosecution concerning a girl below eighteen simply by producing a marriage ceremony recognised by .”
Precedents Cited
The court relied on the 's decisions in Independent Thought v. Union of India () and Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action v. Union of India (), both of which held that sexual intercourse with a minor wife remains an offence under POCSO and the IPC/BNS. The court distinguished the earlier decisions relied upon by the petitioners, noting that those cases dealt with or protection petitions, not quashing of POCSO prosecutions. The court also noted that a prior order of the had directed that one of those decisions ( ) not be relied upon as a precedent.
The Verdict
The dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the FIR, as well as the prayers for disciplinary proceedings against police and compensation. The court clarified that its observations are confined to the quashing prayer and shall not prejudice the trial. The bail granted earlier to the husband will continue on its own terms.
This ruling aligns with the view taken by the and other benches, and marks a clear departure from earlier conflicting decisions. It reinforces that cannot be circumvented by , and that the age of 18 remains the for under Indian law.
