Allahabad High Court Upholds Child Marriage Ban Across All Religions
In a significant legal ruling, the Allahabad High Court has affirmed that the prohibition of child marriage under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), transcends individual personal laws, including those prescribed by Muslim personal law. This decision was rendered in the case of Rubi Vs State of UP.
The Bench, consisting of Justices JJ Munir and Achal Sachdev, denied a petition seeking to quash an FIR against 19 individuals accused of obstructing police and Child Line officers attempting to prevent the marriage of a 16-year-old Muslim girl. The Court stated unequivocally, “The Shariat Law providing for puberty as the competent age under the law permissible for a girl to marry or be married, runs clearly in the teeth of the PCMA as well as the POCSO Act.”
Uniform Legal Age for Marriage
The Court emphasized that the legal age of marriage applies uniformly to all citizens, regardless of religious affiliation, as defined by the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. The judges aligned their opinion with a 2024 Kerala High Court ruling, which similarly concluded that child marriage is illegal for individuals of all religions.
The ruling also referenced previous deliberations by the Supreme Court, which highlighted the ambiguity surrounding whether personal laws can supersede the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. Although a proposed amendment in 2021 aimed to clarify this by granting the PCMA overriding authority, the amendment lapsed with the end of the 17th Lok Sabha.
Case Background and Legal Arguments
The FIR in question was lodged at Kakor police station in Bulandshahr on February 15, 2026, following reports of an intended marriage involving a minor. According to the prosecution, officials faced resistance and threats from the accused when they attempted to bring the minor before a Child Welfare Committee.
More Read
The petitioners contended that under Muslim personal law, a girl who has reached puberty—commonly considered to be around 15 years old—is eligible for marriage. They argued that this personal law should not be affected by the child marriage ban.
Legal Precedence Over Personal Law
The Court decisively rejected this argument, affirming that the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act prescribes a universal marriageable age. It noted that permitting marriage below the age of 18 would likely infringe upon the POCSO Act, as marital relations typically involve sexual activity.
The Bench added, “The PCMA and the POCSO Act are statutes that are based on public health and national policy. They have a scientific understanding to them, legislatively translated into prohibitory statutes, and there can be no escape from it for anyone.”
Furthermore, the Court clarified that these later statutes override earlier exceptions granted under personal laws regarding legal marriage age.
Ultimately, the Court found that the police and Child Line officials acted lawfully in their efforts to prevent the marriage of a minor. It concluded that the accusations against the petitioners warranted investigation, and thus, the FIR could not be dismissed at this early stage.
Representing the petitioners was Advocate Pooja, while the State was represented by Additional Government Advocate-I Ghanshyam Kumar and Additional Government Advocate Shashi Shekhar Tiwari.
[Read Judgment]
