![\"'Marriage](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-134518606,imgsize-80516,width-400,height-225,resizemode-4\/delhi-high-court.jpg\" "\\"'A")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nNEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court<\/a> has refused to quash a POCSO case against a man who married a 16-year-old girl, holding that a marriage claimed to be valid under Muslim personal law cannot shield an adult from prosecution for sexual intercourse with a wife below 18.Justice Sanjeev Narula said the statutory age of 18 under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) cannot be replaced by the concept of puberty under personal law. \u201cPut simply, marriage does not advance a child\u2019s age. A person who is sixteen before the ceremony remains sixteen afterwards,” he said, as quoted by ANI.The court was dealing with a petition filed by Bilal and another seeking quashing of FIR No. 189\/2026 registered at Darya Ganj Police Station under Section 64(1) of the BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act<\/a>. The petitioners had also sought disciplinary action against police officials and compensation for alleged false implication and harassment.According to the judgment, the girl was born on September 19, 2008, and married Bilal on December 20, 2024, when she was 16 years and three months old. Bilal was born on January 1, 1997 and was nearly 28 at the time. The couple subsequently lived together and the girl became pregnant. By May 2026, she was around eight months pregnant. Her age came to the notice of authorities when she visited a government hospital during her pregnancy.The foetus later died in utero and the girl delivered a stillborn child on June 6, 2026. The judgment records that an order was subsequently obtained from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for exhumation of the child for DNA profiling and collection of evidence.The FIR was not based on an allegation made by the girl herself. She maintained that the marriage had taken place with the consent of both families, that she had married of her own free will and that physical relations began after the marriage. She also supported Bilal during his bail proceedings and expressed a desire to have him by her side during her pregnancy.The petitioners argued that under Muslim personal law, a Muslim of sound mind who has attained puberty is competent to marry and that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, puberty is presumed after the age of 15. They contended that since the girl had attained puberty before the nikah, the marriage was valid and the subsequent sexual relationship could not attract criminal liability.The High Court rejected the argument, observing, \u201cPersonal law may determine whether a marriage has been contracted and the civil consequences that follow. It cannot supply an exception to a criminal law where Parliament has provided none.”The court clarified that it was not deciding whether the nikah was valid, void or voidable. Even if the marriage were assumed to be valid, it said, that would not take sexual intercourse with a person below 18 outside the scope of POCSO or the BNS. The court also rejected the argument that the girl’s consent or the absence of force and coercion could take the case outside POCSO.\u201cPOCSO does not confer such a power upon the child, her parents, or the Court,\u201d it observed.The court further said that the age difference between the couple did not by itself establish guilt, but was relevant while considering whether the court should exercise its exceptional jurisdiction to terminate a POCSO prosecution at the threshold.The HC also rejected the argument that the FIR was unsustainable because neither the girl nor her family had approached the police, adding in this case, once doctors learnt that the pregnant patient was below 18, the statutory reporting mechanism was triggered, the court said.The court also rejected the petitioners’ reliance on constitutional freedoms under Articles 21, 25 and 26, holding that they could not create an exception to a generally applicable penal law enacted for the protection of children.\u201cConstitutional liberty protects choice; it does not create an exception to POCSO or the BNS,\u201d the judgment said.The court cautioned against an interpretation that would effectively introduce a marital exception into POCSO for children below 18.Justice Narula added that, \u201cThe statutory protection would then depend not upon the age of the child, but upon whether a marriage had been arranged before the sexual relationship was discovered. That would turn the legislation on its head.”\u201cThe conclusion is narrower: a marriage claimed to be valid under Muslim personal law cannot, by reason of that status alone, confer immunity from POCSO or BNS for sexual intercourse with a wife who was below 18 at the relevant time. Any other view would create, through judicial decision, an exception which Parliament has expressly excluded,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n Share your thoughts in the comments<\/p>\n<\/div>\n