Back
Subsequent Marriage Cannot Retrospectively Legalise Sexual Intercourse With Minor Rules Delhi High Court
The
has firmly held that a
between a woman and the accused after she attains majority cannot retrospectively legalise sexual intercourse that allegedly took place when she was a minor. Justice Sanjeev Narula refused to quash a
case against a man whose wife, now an adult, sought termination of proceedings, stating that
"an
cannot retrospectively supply legal consent."
The Story Behind the Case
The case originated from an FIR registered in when the mother of a 16-year-old girl reported her missing. The girl had left home voluntarily and was traced months later, pregnant. In her statement, she claimed the relationship with the petitioner, Ankit Kumar Singh, was consensual and that she had misrepresented her age to him. She later attained majority, married him in , and they had a child. The couple sought of the FIR under , arguing that the victim's current wish to live with the petitioner and the birth of their child warranted closure of the case.
Arguments Presented
The petitioner's counsel relied on the victim's consistent stand of voluntariness, the marriage, and the family's acceptance, citing precedents like and , which allow in matrimonial and family disputes. The State, represented by APP , opposed the plea, emphasizing the victim's minority at the time of the alleged acts, the medical evidence of pregnancy during her minority, and the seriousness of the offence under POCSO.
Legal Analysis: Why Marriage Doesn't Erase the Offence
The court underscored that under POCSO, a child is anyone below 18, and
.
"Willingness may explain the relationship; it does not take the alleged act outside the statute,"
Justice Narula observed. The court rejected the argument that the victim's near-adulthood or the voluntary nature of the relationship could override the
. It noted that Parliament chose a
, and courts cannot substitute their own assessment of a child's maturity.
The judgment also addressed the marriage certificate solemnised after the victim turned 18.
"Their
as adults cannot determine the legality of sexual intercourse during her minority,"
the court stated, adding that even a subsisting marriage under the
does not displace POCSO, relying on
.
The court distinguished precedents like and , noting that in those cases, minority was either disputed or the State did not oppose . Here, the victim's minority was undisputed, and the State actively opposed the petition.
Key Observations from the Bench
Justice Sanjeev Narula made several poignant observations:
"To end the prosecution on the grounds advanced would allow
, parenthood and family acceptance to outweigh the protection afforded to her when she was a child."
"The Court is conscious of the painful consequence of refusing relief: the woman for whose protection the law is invoked now sees the proceedings as a threat to the family she wishes to preserve. Yet
remains central to this Court's assessment."
The court acknowledged the victim's present choice as an adult but distinguished it from the legal consequences of acts committed during her minority.
The Verdict and Its Implications
Dismissing the petition, the court directed the Special Court to proceed with the case independently, uninfluenced by any observations in this order. The bail already granted to the petitioner remains undisturbed, and he is at liberty to approach the for relief under .
This ruling reinforces the protective intent of POCSO, making clear that no subsequent family harmony can erase the crime of sexual assault on a child. It serves as a cautionary precedent for cases where adolescent relationships lead to prosecution, emphasizing that , not , must address the "Romeo-Juliet" dilemma.
