Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

Muslim Girl Can Marry Without Parents' Consent On Attaining Puberty: Delhi HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In accordance with Mohammedan law, a young girl who has attained puberty is permitted to marry without the consent of her parents and to live with her spouse, even if she is younger than 18. The Delhi High Court observed this.

Justice Jasmeet Singh made the remark while granting protection to a Muslim couple who wed in March of this year in accordance with Muslim rituals and traditions. The request was made by the couple in an effort to keep them together.

The girl's parents opposed the union and filed a FIR against the spouse in accordance with section 363 of the IPC. Later, the POCSO's sections 376 and 6 were introduced.

The girl said she eloped and got married of her own free will and that she routinely suffered abuse from her parents.

According to the State's status report, which stated the girl's birthdate as August 2, 2006, she was only 15 years and 5 months old at the time of the marriage.

In April of this year, the girl was taken out of the husband's custody and taken to Delhi's Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital for a medical checkup (DDU).

The duo engaged in sexual activity and were expecting a child together, according to the status report.

The Court noted in granting the couple protection: The Court was of the opinion that the POCSO Act will not be drawn to the present case as it is not a case of sexual exploitation but rather one in which the couple was in love, got married in accordance with Muslim law, and then had physical relationships.

The pair, who were legally married, could not, it was decided, be denied their own company, which is what makes a marriage function."

If the petitioners are divided up, the petitioner no. 1 and her unborn child would only experience more trauma. The state desires to protect Petitioner No. 1's best interests in this instance "according to the Court.

It contained "If the petitioner voluntarily consented to the marriage and is happy with it, the state has no power to invade their private space and divorce them. The state will be violating people's privacy by doing the same."

The court ruled that the girl was free to join her husband's business if she so desired.

The petitioners have a right to be together, and the respondent nos. 1 through 3 are required to ensure their protection and safety, the court decided.

The petition was granted in this fashion.

FIJA & ANR. Vs State

Latest Legal News