Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

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