123 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.10.2025 WAHID AND ANOTHER ...PETITIONERS V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr. Sajida Akhtar, Advocate for the petitioners.

****

SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (ORAL)

1. The prayer in the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for the issuance of directions to the respondent Nos.1 to 3, as they are newly married couple and they have apprehension of danger to their life and liberty from the hands of respondent Nos.4 & 5.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are Muhammadan; they have solemnized marriage against the wishes of the respondent Nos.4 and 5. Though petitioner No.2 is minor but under Muslim Personal Law, a girl is entitled to solemnize marriage after attaining the age of puberty i.e. 15 years and in the present case, petitioner No.2 is more than 17 years of age. Both are major as per the Muslims Personal Law as age of majority of a girl in Muhammadans is tantamount to age of puberty. They are facing apprehension of danger to their life and liberty from private respondents and thereby their cherished fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is being strangulated. The petitioners have also moved a representation dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure P-5) in this regard, but no action has been taken.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G. Punjab, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and submits that petitioner No.2 has solemnized marriage with petitioner No.1, without attaining the age of majority, which is prohibited under the provisions of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006; there is no dispute to the proposition that Article 21 of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and it is imperative upon the State to take adequate measures to protect the life and liberty of each person. However, there are statutory safeguards required under the statutory scheme to protect the interest of a minor and once such a fact comes to the notice of the Court, it becomes incumbent upon the Court in its capacity as parens patriae to examine what is in the best interest of the minor.

5. Heard.

6. Petitioners, being Muslims are claiming to have solemnized marriage, however, one of the spouse i.e. petitioner No.2 is admittedly below the age of 18 years. Petitioners seek protection of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, citing threats from the private respondents due to the said marriage. Upon consideration, it is clear that the girl/petitioner No.2 is a minor. Regardless of religious or personal laws, the marriage of a minor girl below 18 years of age raises serious concerns under various special legislations enacted for the welfare, protection, and dignity of children

7. The petitioners are relying on Muslim personal law, under which a girl who has attained puberty (presumed at age 15) may marry. However, this Court is of the considered view that in the face of contrary statutory law, personal law cannot prevail. In Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 800, the Hon’ble Supreme Court unequivocally held that Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC, which allowed marital intercourse with a wife above 15 years, is unconstitutional, and the age of consent in all cases is 18 years, even within marriage. Further, under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, the minimum legal age for a girl to marry is 18 years; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, all sexual activity with a person below 18 is statutory rape, regardless of consent or marital status; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, every child in need of care and protection must be safeguarded from abuse, exploitation and neglect. These special laws are secular, welfare- centric, and override personal laws. They reflect the compelling state