Introduction
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the provisions of Shariat (Muslim Personal Law) permitting marriage after a girl attains puberty cannot override the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (PCMA) or the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The Court observed that the minimum legal age of marriage applies uniformly to all citizens of India, irrespective of religion, and that no personal law can supersede statutory protections enacted to safeguard children.
Case Background
The ruling came while the High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by 19 individuals seeking to quash an FIR registered against them for allegedly assaulting and obstructing police officials and members of a Childline rescue team.
The authorities had intervened to prevent the marriage of a 16-year-old Muslim girl in Bulandshahr district. According to the FIR, the rescue team was abused, threatened, and obstructed while attempting to rescue the minor, who was allegedly taken away from their custody before being rescued again.
Petitioners’ Stand
The petitioners argued that under Muslim Personal Law, a girl becomes competent to marry after attaining puberty, which is generally presumed to be around 15 years of age.
They contended that the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act does not override the Shariat law governing Muslim marriages and therefore the proposed marriage could not be treated as illegal.
High Court’s Observations
Rejecting the contention, the High Court held that no personal law can negate the statutory prohibition against child marriage or dilute the protections available under the POCSO Act.
The Court observed that marriage ordinarily involves sexual relations, and permitting the marriage of a girl below 18 years would inevitably result in conduct prohibited under the POCSO Act.
The Bench emphasised that the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and the POCSO Act are welfare legislations founded on public health, child protection and national policy, making them applicable to every citizen irrespective of religion.
Agreeing with the Kerala High Court’s earlier view, the Court held that personal law cannot prevail over laws enacted to prohibit child marriage.
The Bench also referred to the Supreme Court’s observations made in 2025, where the issue of the relationship between personal laws and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act was noted but remained undecided. It observed that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which sought to address related issues, had lapsed with the dissolution of the 17th Lok Sabha.
FIR Quashing Refused
On the facts of the case, the Court found that there was a deliberate attempt by the minor girl’s family and others to solemnise her marriage in violation of the law.
The Court appreciated the prompt intervention of the police and Childline officials, observing that they were acting in the bona fide discharge of their statutory duties to prevent child marriage and a possible violation of the POCSO Act.
Holding that the allegations disclosed prima facie offences, including obstruction of public servants in the discharge of their duties, the Court refused to interfere with the FIR.
Final Verdict
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition and reaffirmed that the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and the POCSO Act override any contrary provisions of personal law relating to the age of marriage. It held that the statutory minimum age of marriage applies equally to all citizens, irrespective of religion.
Case Title: Ruby and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
