Husband will not be subjected to POCSO: Delhi HC said – Muslim law allows a young girl to marry at will, even if she is a minor

Delhi High Court has given police protection to a Muslim couple from Bihar. The court said that according to Muslim law, a minor girl who has reached puberty can marry without the consent of her parents. Also she has the right to live with her husband. The couple got married this year as per Muslim rituals in Oraiya district of Bihar.

The bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh also said that the POCSO Act does not apply in cases where physical relations are formed only after marriage.

The family was against the marriage, so the case was registered
A bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has given police protection to the couple. The couple got married this year as per Muslim rituals in Oraiya district. After marriage, the couple had sought a direction from the court to give them security. The girl’s family had opposed this marriage. After this, a case was registered against the girl’s husband under section 376 (rape) of IPC and section 6 of POCSO Act.

The girl was a minor, 15 years and 5 months old at the time of marriage.
According to the girl’s family, the age of the girl was about 15 years and 5 months at the time of marriage and after marriage she became pregnant. Justice Singh said that the petitioner husband and wife are legally married. They cannot be separated from each other. If the two are separated then it will be injustice to the girl and her future child.

Our aim is to protect the interests of the girl child. If she has consented to the marriage and she is happy, then the state is no one to interfere in her private life and separate them. To do so would be an invasion of his privacy.

Confusion over POCSO Act
There was also a dilemma during the hearing in this case, when the present case was countered by an earlier decision of Justice Singh itself. In fact, Justice Jasmeet Singh had said in an order that a Muslim man can be accused of having sex with a minor girl under the POCSO Act.

To this, he said that both the cases are different as the minor was exploited in the previous case. The accused had sex without marriage and later refused to marry the victim.