POCSO, Child Marriage Law Override Muslim Personal Law: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act prevail over any provision of Sharia or Muslim Personal Law permitting marriage after a girl attains puberty.

The Court emphasised that the statutory minimum age for marriage applies uniformly, irrespective of religious beliefs.

Case Background

The observations came while the High Court heard a petition filed by 19 individuals seeking the quashing of an FIR registered in connection with an alleged attack on police personnel and Childline officials in Bulandshahr.

The Bench dismissed the petition, finding sufficient grounds for the criminal proceedings to continue.

Police records state that the incident took place in the Kakod police station area of Bulandshahr, where people were allegedly conducting the marriage of a 16-year-old Muslim girl.

After receiving information about the ceremony, police officers and a Childline team reached the venue to stop the marriage.

During the operation, the accused allegedly assaulted the officials and obstructed them from performing their duties, prompting the police to register an FIR.

The petitioners argued that Muslim Personal Law permits the marriage of a girl after she reaches puberty and therefore the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act should not apply.

A Division Bench comprising Justice JJ Munir and Justice Achal Sachdeva rejected the submission, ruling that no personal law can override statutory child protection legislation.

The Court reiterated that the marriage of a girl below 18 years of age is unlawful.

The High Court also referred to a 2025 Supreme Court order on the issue. It observed that the amendment Bill concerning the matter had lapsed with the dissolution of the 17th Lok Sabha and that no final legislative decision had been taken.

The Bench further held that the police and Childline officials were acting within the scope of their legal responsibilities to prevent a potential child marriage and a possible POCSO offence. It concluded that the FIR disclosed a prima facie case of obstructing public servants and other alleged offences, leaving no valid basis for quashing the case.

Also Read: Supreme Court Declines To Hear DMK Plea In Karur Stampede Case