Kerala High Court Upholds POCSO Act in Case Involving Minor Wife
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court recently declined to quash criminal charges against a man accused of repeatedly raping a 17-year-old girl, emphasizing that claims of marital status under Muslim personal law do not exempt him from prosecution. The judgment was delivered by Justice Jobin Sebastian on August 19, 2026, in response to a petition submitted by the accused.
The accused argued that the minor was his legally wedded wife, with their marriage having been solemnized according to Muslim religious customs. However, he faced charges under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The Court clarified that even if a marriage ceremony was conducted under Muslim personal law, it does not shield the accused from prosecution under the POCSO Act since the girl was under 18.
“Even assuming for the sake of argument that a marriage was solemnized as per Muslim religious rites and ceremonies, the same will not salvage the petitioner’s criminal liability, particularly since the girl was seventeen years old at the time of the alleged marriage and subsequent sexual acts,” the Court remarked. Justice Sebastian noted that the POCSO Act’s provisions apply if one party is a minor, irrespective of the marriage’s validity under personal law.
Details of the Case
The prosecution alleged that the accused had taken the minor to his home on October 23, 2021, where he allegedly raped her that night and over the following four days. It was further alleged that the accused’s parents facilitated the crime. Criminal proceedings were initiated, leading the accused to seek relief from the High Court, claiming he had married the girl on July 23, 2021, when she was 17 years and 1 month old, following Islamic rites and in the presence of both families.
The Court observed there was no documentary evidence to support the solemnization of the marriage, and noted that the marriage’s validity would be determined during the trial. Importantly, Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act defines a ‘child’ as anyone below 18. “It is manifestly clear that sexual intercourse with a girl below eighteen years of age attracts the offences under the POCSO Act, and in such a situation, whether the child is the wife of the accused or not is of little consequence,” the Court added.
Citing the prima facie evidence of offences under the POCSO Act, the Court refused to quash the FIR, the final report, or any ongoing legal proceedings, thereby dismissing the petition. Advocate Sunny Matthew and Anooj J represented the accused, while Advocate P Jayaram appeared for the minor victim. Senior public prosecutor Navas VA represented the State.
