The Allahabad High Court has held that the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (PCMA) overrides Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) on the question of the minimum age of marriage, ruling that a Muslim girl cannot be married merely because she has attained puberty. The Court further observed that marriages involving girls below 18 years would inevitably lead to offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, as reported in LawBeat.
The ruling came from a Division Bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Achal Sachdev while dismissing a petition seeking to quash an FIR registered against 19 persons accused of obstructing police and Child Line officials from preventing the marriage of a 16-year-old girl in Uttar Pradesh’s Bulandshahr district.
Court Says PCMA Applies Uniformly Irrespective of Religion
Rejecting the petitioners’ reliance on Muslim Personal Law, the Bench held that the statutory minimum age of marriage prescribed under the PCMA applies equally to every citizen, irrespective of religion.
“The age of marriage, in our considered opinion, for every citizen of the country, irrespective of religion, is that, that is spelt out by the PCMA,” the Court observed.
The Bench categorically held that the Shariat principle recognising puberty, generally at 15 years, as the age of marriage “runs clearly in the teeth” of both the PCMA and the POCSO Act.
According to the Court, allowing marriage below the age of 18 would necessarily result in consummation of the marriage, which would amount to an offence under the POCSO Act, since the statute defines a child as any person below 18 years of age.
Describing both the PCMA and the POCSO Act as legislations founded on public health, scientific understanding and national policy, the Bench observed that “there can be no escape from it for anyone.”
FIR Registered After Child Marriage Was Prevented
The case arose out of an incident on February 15, 2026, when police officials and members of the Child Line Team reached Village Sunpeda Baksuwa in Bulandshahr after receiving information that the marriage of a 16-year-old girl was about to take place.
According to the FIR, officials spoke to the girl and her parents and informed them that she would be produced before the Child Welfare Committee.
The FIR alleges that the accused, along with several unidentified persons, abused and threatened the officials, forcibly took the minor girl away from the custody of a Child Line worker, and obstructed government officials from performing their statutory duties. Police personnel and Child Line officials allegedly had to flee the scene to protect themselves before later rescuing the girl. Authorities also claimed that the entire incident was video-recorded.
Based on the incident, an FIR was registered against 19 persons.
Petitioners Invoked Muslim Personal Law
Seeking quashing of the FIR, the petitioners argued that under Muslim Personal Law, a girl who has attained puberty, generally at the age of 15 years, is competent to marry.
They relied on provisions of the Indian Majority Act and the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act to contend that the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act would not override Muslim Personal Law.
The High Court rejected the contention and expressed complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the Kerala High Court in the Moidutty Musliyar judgment, which held that no personal law can override the statutory prohibition on child marriage contained in the PCMA.
Court Notes Divergent High Court Views
The Bench acknowledged that different High Courts have expressed conflicting opinions on the issue and that the Supreme Court has not yet authoritatively settled the legal position.
However, it held that this did not prevent the Allahabad High Court from adopting what it considered to be the correct legal interpretation, namely that provisions of Shariat permitting marriage after puberty are inconsistent with both the PCMA and the POCSO Act.
Officials Were Performing Their Legal Duty, Says Court
Refusing to interfere with the criminal proceedings, the Court held that the police and Child Line officials were acting entirely within the scope of the law while attempting to prevent a child marriage and a possible offence under the POCSO Act.
The Bench described their conduct as “commendable.”
The Court further observed that the gravamen of the FIR was not confined to the attempted child marriage itself, but also concerned the alleged assault, intimidation and obstruction faced by officials while discharging their statutory duties.
According to the allegations contained in the FIR, the accused abused, threatened and prevented public servants from carrying out their lawful functions, thereby disclosing a prima facie case requiring investigation.
Rejecting the petitioners’ arguments that certain penal provisions had been wrongly invoked and that there were no independent witnesses, the Bench held that such questions pertained to the investigation and, if necessary, the trial.
Holding that the case did not warrant interference at the threshold, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition, vacated the interim protection granted earlier, and directed that its order be communicated to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahr, and the Station House Officer of Kakor Police Station.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
