The Kerala High Court recently refused to quash a case against a man accused of repeatedly raping a 17-year-old girl, holding that the alleged marital relationship between them could not protect him from prosecution.

Justice Jobin Sebastian made the observation in an order dated August 19, 2026, while dismissing a plea by the accused who claimed that the minor victim was his legally wedded wife and that their marriage had been solemnised according to Muslim religious rites.

The accused had been charged under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. Insofar as the POCSO offences were concerned, the Court said that even if such a marriage had taken place under Muslim personal law, it would not protect the accused from criminal liability since the girl was below the age of 18.

"Even assuming for the sake of argument that a marriage was solemnized as per Muslim religious rites and ceremonies, the same will not salvage the petitioner's criminal liability, particularly since the girl was seventeen years old at the time of the alleged marriage and subsequent sexual acts. Undisputedly, the provisions of the POCSO Act apply if one of the parties to the marriage is a minor, irrespective of the validity or otherwise of the marriage under personal law," the Court stated.

The prosecution's case was that the accused had taken the minor girl to his residence on October 23, 2021 and forcefully raped her that night and for the next 4 days. It was alleged that even the accused's parents had facilitated the commission of the crime. Criminal proceedings were initiated against the accused, after which he approached the High Court to quash the proceedings.

He claimed that he had married the girl on July 23, 2021 when she was 17 years and 1 month old in accordance with Islamic religious rites and in the presence of members of both families.

The Court, however, noted that there was no documentary evidence showing the solemnisation of the marriage. Whether the marriage was valid was to be determined during the trial, it added.

It noted that Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act defines 'child' as any person below the age of 18.

"Therefore, it is manifestly clear that sexual intercourse with a girl below eighteen years of age attracts the offences under the POCSO Act, and in such a situation, whether the child is the wife of the accused or not is of little consequence. Be that as it may, the allegations in the present case prima facie constitute the ingredients required to attract the offences alleged under the POCSO Act," the Court added.

Noting that allegations and materials prima facie disclosed the alleged offences, the Court refused to quash the FIR, final report or the further proceedings and dismissed the petition.

Advocate Sunny Matthew and Anooj J appeared for the accused.

Advocate P Jayaram represented the minor victim.

Senior public prosecutor Navas VA appeared for the State.

[Read Order]