Muslim law permitting marriage at puberty violates POCSO; child marriage ban applies to all religions: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court recently held that no personal law, including Muslim personal law, can violate the ban on child marriage brought about by the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 or override the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) [Rubi Vs State of UP].

A Bench of Justices JJ Munir and Achal Sachdev made the observation while refusing to quash an 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.

The Court noted that Shariat (the basis of Muslim personal law) permitting marriage at puberty, clearly violates the ban on child marriage and laws prohibiting sexual intercourse 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 said.

The Bench noted that there are conflicting High Court views on the issue, but expressed agreement with the views of the Kerala High Court in a 2024 judgment, in which it was held that child marriage is prohibited by law for all, regardless of the religion they follow 

In the July 1 ruling, the Court also observed that a related issue had earlier reached the Supreme Court. However, the top court did not give an authoritative ruling on it.

The Court also noted that the Supreme Court had, in 2024, flagged the confusion over whether personal laws can prevail over the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

While the Supreme Court had then referred to a proposed 2021 amendment that would have expressly given the PCMA overriding effect over personal laws, the Allahabad High Court noted that the Bill appears to have lapsed with the dissolution of the 17th Lok Sabha.

The Court was dealing with a plea to quash a first information report (FIR) registered at Kakor police station in Bulandshahr on February 15, 2026. The FIR alleged that police and Child Line officials had received information about the proposed marriage of a minor girl and went to her house to prevent it.

According to the prosecution, when the officials tried to take the girl before the Child Welfare Committee, the petitioners and several others abused and threatened the police and Child Line team. It was also alleged that they forcibly took the girl away from the custody of a Child Line team member.

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

The Court rejected the argument.

It said that the age of marriage for every citizen, irrespective of religion, is the age prescribed under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA). It also noted that if the marriage of a person below 18 years is permitted, it would likely result in a violation of the POCSO Act, since 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 added.

The Court further pointed out that the PCMA and the POCSO Act would prevail over earlier exceptions given for personal laws when it came to 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, the Court found that the police and Child Line team had acted within the law by trying 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 said.

It added that the allegations against the petitioners, prima facie, disclosed that they obstructed public servants in the discharge of their duties. The Court 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.

Additional Government Advocate-I Ghanshyam Kumar and Additional Government Advocate Shashi Shekhar Tiwari appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]