Benefit Of Acquittal Can Be Extended To Non-Appealing Co-Accused If Prosecution Case Is Found To Be Fundamentally Unreliable: Madras High Court Hindu Marriage Act | Petition For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Serves As A Valid Defence Against Allegations Of Desertion: Kerala High Court Employee Has No Vested Right To Seek Or Retain Additional Charge; Writ Petition Not Maintainable To Challenge Its Withdrawal: Madhya Pradesh High Court Insurance Act | Insurer Cannot Waive Statutory Deadline For Premium Payment Under Bank Guarantee; No Estoppel Against Statute: NCDRC Absence Of Crime Number In Inquest Report & Discrepancy In Sec 157 CrPC Special Report Renders FIR Doubtful: Allahabad High Court MTP Act  | Termination Of Pregnancy Beyond 24 Weeks Permissible If It Involves Risk To Life Or Grave Injury To Mental Health Of The Victim: Gujarat High Court Section 174A IPC | FIR Cannot Be Quashed If Process Server Reports Indicate Failure To Serve At Ordinary Residence: Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines Insolvency Petition | Transferees Of Debtor Cannot Substitute Debtor To Rebut Allegation Of Intent To Defeat Creditors Under Section 6(b) Provincial Insolvency Act: High Court Medical Negligence | Doctor Cannot Be Held Liable For Choosing One Reasonable Course Of Treatment Over Another: Bombay High Court Cruelty | Non-Registration Of FIR Cannot Be Ground To Discredit Testimony Of Wife Seeking Divorce: Jharkhand High Court No Deception At Inception: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Revive Cheating Charges Against Borrower After One-Time Settlement Consumer Protection Act | Doctrine Of 'Caveat Emptor' Subservient To 'Caveat Venditor'; Auctioneer Liable For Sale Of Encumbered Vehicle: State Commission Section 127 CrPC | Past Compromise Not An Eternal Estoppel To Bar Wife From Seeking Enhancement In Maintenance: Orissa High Court States Can Prescribe Higher Qualifications Than UGC Norms, Additional Tests Promote Meritocracy: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cancel Registered Sale Deed Or Adjudicate Title Disputes: Telangana High Court Principal Employer Cannot Abdicate Statutory Liability For Overtime Wages Of Contract Labour Despite Contractual Indemnity Clauses: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory For Invoking SC/ST Act Provisions If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked For Re-valuation Of Structures Once Compensation Dispute Is Adjudicated Under Section 64 RFCTLARR Act: Telangana High Court Revenue Village Naming | Government Must Ensure Names Do Not Reflect Any Person, Caste, Or Religion Under Policy Guidelines: Rajasthan High Court Section 138 NI Act | Complainant Must Prove Proprietorship Of Firm To Establish Status As 'Payee' Or 'Holder In Due Course': Himachal Pradesh High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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