The Delhi High Court on September 23 refused to quash a criminal case against a man accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in connection with his marriage to a girl who was 16 years and three months old. Justice Sanjeev Narula held that a marriage claimed to be valid under Muslim personal law cannot, by that status alone, shield an adult from child-protection and penal statutes.
The court deliberately separated two questions. It assumed, without finally deciding, that the marriage could have civil validity under Muslim personal law. It then held that civil validity cannot create an exception to a criminal law when Parliament has provided none. The judgment therefore does not invalidate every Muslim marriage or decide the full civil-law status of the couple’s marriage.
POCSO defines every person below 18 as a child and criminalises penetrative sexual assault without treating a child’s consent as a defence. The court also pointed to Section 63 of the BNS, which treats sexual intercourse with a woman below 18 as rape with or without consent. It said constitutional freedoms of choice and religion do not give an adult immunity from generally applicable laws enacted to protect children.
According to the court record, the couple married in December 2024 with both families’ consent. The case came to police attention in May 2026 when the girl, then around eight months pregnant, attended a government hospital and school records showed that she was under 18. She later delivered a stillborn child in June. These facts are reported only to explain the legal proceedings; her identity is withheld because the case concerns a minor and alleged sexual offences.
The couple argued that the girl had attained puberty, chose the marriage and continued to support her husband, so the relationship should fall outside criminal liability under Muslim personal law. The court said her account deserved to be heard with dignity but could not change the statutory age threshold. Refusing to quash the case leaves the prosecution to proceed; it is not a conviction and does not establish the accused man’s guilt. Any trial, appeal or later ruling may further determine the case.