Muslim personal law can't override POCSO, child marriage act: Allahbad High Court

The Allahabad High Court refused to quash an FIR over attempts to stop a 16-year-old girl's marriage in Bulandshahr. It said personal laws cannot override the child marriage bar under the PCMA or protections under POCSO.

In Short

• Court refuses to quash FIR against 19 accused obstructing child marriage prevention
• Shariat law permitting puberty marriage inconsistent with PCMA and POCSO
• Court aligns with Kerala HC that child marriage ban applies to all religions

The Allahabad High Court has held that no personal law, including Muslim personal law, can violate the prohibition on child marriage under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (PCMA), or override the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), as reported by the Bar and Bench

A Bench of Justices JJ Munir and Achal Sachdev made the observation while refusing to quash a first information report (FIR) against 19 persons accused of obstructing police and Child Line officials who had gone to stop the marriage of a 16-year-old Muslim girl in Uttar Pradesh.

In its July 1 ruling in Rubi Vs State of UP, the Court said that Shariat, which forms the basis of Muslim personal law, permitting marriage at puberty is inconsistent with the statutory prohibition on child marriage and laws criminalising sexual relations with minors.

“The Shariat Law providing for puberty as the competent age under the law permissible for a girl to marry or be married, runs clearly in the teeth of the PCMA as well as the POCSO Act,” the Court observed.

The Bench noted that there are conflicting views among High Courts on the issue but said it agreed with the Kerala High Court's 2024 judgment, which held that the prohibition on child marriage applies to all citizens regardless of religion.

The Court also noted that the issue had earlier reached the Supreme Court, but the apex court did not deliver an authoritative ruling. It further observed that the Supreme Court, in 2024, had highlighted the uncertainty over whether personal laws could prevail over the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

Referring to the proposed 2021 amendment that sought to expressly give the PCMA overriding effect over personal laws, the High Court said the Bill appeared to have lapsed following the dissolution of the 17th Lok Sabha.

The case arose from a plea seeking to quash an FIR registered at Kakor police station in Bulandshahr on February 15, 2026.

According to the prosecution, police and Child Line officials received information about the proposed marriage of a minor girl and visited her residence to prevent it. When officials attempted to produce the girl before the Child Welfare Committee, the petitioners and several others allegedly abused and threatened the police and Child Line team. They also allegedly took the girl away from the custody of a Child Line team member by force.

The petitioners argued that under Muslim personal law, a girl who has attained puberty, generally regarded as 15 years of age, is competent to marry. They contended that the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act would not affect their personal law governing marriage.

The High Court rejected the argument, holding that the legal age of marriage prescribed under the PCMA applies to every citizen irrespective of religion.

The Bench further observed that permitting the marriage of a person below 18 years would likely result in a violation of the POCSO Act because sexual relations are ordinarily inseparable from marriage.

“The PCMA and the POCSO Act are statutes that are based on public health and national policy in this regard. They have a scientific understanding to them, legislatively translated into prohibitory statutes and there can be no escape from it for anyone,” the Court said.

The Court also held that the PCMA and the POCSO Act would prevail over earlier exceptions provided under personal laws in determining the legal age for marriage.

“A later statute, which is all encompassing, that is for all citizens, would prevail over the exception made in the Majority Act, 1875. It may also be noted that the marriage performed in violation of the PCMA may be viodable and not void, but the act of performing such a marriage by different parties is punishable by law.”

On the facts of the case, the Court found that the police and Child Line officials had acted within the law while attempting to prevent the marriage of a minor girl.

“The Police as well as the Child Line Team were conscious of their duties under the PCMA and also acting to prevent a possible violation of the POCSO Act,” the Court observed.

The Bench added that the allegations against the petitioners prima facie disclosed obstruction of public servants in the discharge of their official duties. It held that the matter required investigation and was not a fit case for quashing the FIR at the threshold.

Advocate Pooja appeared for the petitioners, while Additional Government Advocate-I Ghanshyam Kumar and Additional Government Advocate Shashi Shekhar Tiwari represented the State.

- Ends