POCSO will prevail: Karnataka High Court rejects Muslim personal law provision for puberty to ascertain age of marriage

Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The High Court has held that POCSO Act is a Special Act and it overrides personal law and under POCSO Act, the age for involving in sexual activities is 18 years

A Single Judge Bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising Justice Rajendra Badamikar granted bail to one Aleem Pasha in a case registered against him under the Child Marriage Restrain Act and Protections of Child from Sexual Offence Act. While doing so, High Court has held that POCSO Act is a Special Act and it overrides personal law and under POCSO Act, the age for involving in sexual activities is 18 years.

A case was registered against the petitioner when the wife of the petitioner approached the primary health center for a medical checkup where it was found that she was pregnant. It was also found out that the age of the girl was 17 years. It was alleged that the marriage of the victim was solemnized when she was a minor and she became pregnant after the marriage.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that under Mohammedan Law, puberty is the consideration for marriage and normal puberty age is treated as 15 years and that there is no commission of an offense under Sections 9 and 10 of the Child Marriage Restrain Act.

The court while rejecting the arguments of the petitioner said that

“Such arguments cannot be accepted in view of the fact that POCSO Act is a Special Act and it over rights personal law and under POCSO Act, the age for involving in sexual activities is 18 years.”

The High Court while granting bail to the petitioner took into consideration that the victim is aged 17 years and is capable of understanding things and noted that,

“Though she asserts that without her consent, marriage was solemnized, there is no evidence to show that she has raised any objections and the prima-facie, it is evident that she is also consenting party though she is under the influence of her parents.”

The court while granting bail to the petitioner considered that the pregnant wife needed her husband during her pregnancy and the petitioner produced all the relevant documents before the trial court regarding their marriage.

Case title: Aleem Pasha vs State of Karnataka & Anr.