Plaintiff In Title Suit Must Prove Own Case On Independent Evidence, Cannot Rely On Weakness Of Defence: Supreme Court Advocate Commissioner's Failure To Localize Land Per Title Deeds Fatal To Encroachment Claim: Andhra Pradesh High Court Enmity Is A Double-Edged Weapon, Can Be Motive For False Implication As Much As For Crime: Allahabad High Court Parity In Bail: Karnataka High Court Grants Relief To Accused In Robbery Case As Mastermind & Main Offenders Were Already Enlarged Specific Performance Denied If Buyer Fails To Prove Continuous Readiness With Funds; Part-Payment Can't Be Forfeited Without Specific Clause: Delhi High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept In Police Stations For Long, Courts Must Judiciously Exercise Power To Release On Supurdagi: Madhya Pradesh High Court Prolonged Incarceration Militates Against Article 21, Constitutional Principles Must Override Section 37 NDPS Rigors: Punjab & Haryana High Court Onus On Individual To Prove Claim Of 'Fear Of Religious Persecution' For Exemption Under Foreigners Act: Calcutta High Court Direct Recruits Cannot Claim Seniority From A Date Prior To Their Entry Into The Cadre: Orissa High Court Sale Deed Executed After Land Vests In State Confers No Title; Post-Vesting Purchaser Can’t Claim Compensation: Calcutta High Court No Right To Blanket Regularization For Contractual Staff; State Must Timely Fill Sanctioned Vacancies Under Reserved Quota: Supreme Court Non-Signatory Collaborator Under 'Deed Of Joint Undertaking' Can Invoke Arbitration Clause As A 'Veritable Party': Supreme Court Insolvency Proceedings Cannot Be Used As Coercive Recovery Mechanism For Complex Contractual Disputes: Supreme Court Legal Heirs Who Were Parties To Sale Cannot Challenge Transfer Under PTCL Act After Long Delay: Supreme Court SC/ST Act | Proceedings To Annul Sale Illegal If Initiated By Legal Heirs Who Were Parties To The Transaction: Supreme Court Consumers Cannot Be Burdened With Tariff Charges Beyond Period Of Service Delivery: Supreme Court Mere Non-Production Of Old Selection Records Or Non-Publication Of All Candidates' Marks No Ground To Direct Appointment: Supreme Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeals Against Acquittal In Sohrabuddin Shaikh Encounter Case; Says Prosecution Failed To Prove Conspiracy Dishonour Of Cheque Due To Signature Mismatch Or Incomplete Signature Attracts Section 138 NI Act: Supreme Court 138 NI Act | High Court Cannot Let Off Accused In NI Act Case By Ordering Only Cheque Amount Payment Without Interest Or Penalty: Supreme Court

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