Punjab and Haryana High Court Cites Muslim Law on Minor
The Punjab and Haryana High Court noted that Muslim personal law presumes a person who has attained puberty is competent to marry.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that under Muslim personal law, a person who has attained puberty is presumed competent to marry a person of their choice. The court made this remark while hearing a petition from a 26-year-old Muslim man and a 17-year-and-eight-month-old Muslim woman seeking protection after their marriage.
Justice Vikram Aggarwal delivered the order, which did not make a final ruling on the marriage's validity. The couple had performed a nikah ceremony after the woman's father opposed their relationship. The court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural) in Ludhiana to consider the couple's representation for protection and take appropriate action.
The Legal Presumption of Puberty
The High Court referred to established principles of Mohammedan law. It cited Article 195 from Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mulla's authoritative text, which recognises a Muslim of sound mind who has attained puberty as competent to enter a marriage contract. In the absence of specific evidence, the law presumes puberty is attained at age 15.
The court also relied on its 2010 decision in Kammu v. State of Haryana. That ruling held a Muslim boy or girl who has reached puberty is at liberty to marry a person of their choice, and a guardian cannot interfere where the requirements of personal law are satisfied.
Conflicting High Court Judgments
Different High Courts have reached divergent conclusions on this issue, creating a patchwork of legal interpretations. Some rulings uphold the primacy of personal law, while others assert the overriding force of child protection statutes.
| Case | Court | Year | Key Ruling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mohd. Samim v. State Of Haryana | Punjab & Haryana High Court | 2018 | Held marriage of a 16-year-old girl valid under Muslim law as she had attained puberty. Directed her release from a Safe House. |
| Rahul v. State of Karnataka | Karnataka High Court | 2021 | Noted the POCSO Act would have an overriding effect on Muslim personal law. |
| Aleem Pasha v. State of Karnataka | Karnataka High Court | 2022 | Held POCSO Act overrides personal law; sexual activity age is 18, even within marriage. |
| Moidutty Musliyar v. State of Kerala | Kerala High Court | 2024 | Refused to quash PCMA proceedings against those who conducted a child marriage, rejecting the personal law defence. |
| Rubi v. State of U.P. | Allahabad High Court | 2026 | Held Muslim personal law cannot override the PCMA and POCSO Act. |
Supreme Court Interventions
The Supreme Court has addressed the issue but avoided a definitive national ruling. In October 2022, it issued notice on a plea by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) seeking examination of a Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling. The court, however, declined to interfere with the relief granted to the specific couple.
In January 2023, the Supreme Court stated that the High Court's judgment in Javed v. State of Haryana and Others (2022), which held a 15-year-old Muslim girl could enter a valid marriage, should not be cited as a precedent. More recently, on August 19, 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed an NCPCR petition challenging that same 2022 judgment. A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan ruled the Commission lacked the legal standing, or locus standi, to challenge the High Court's order.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the NCPCR in earlier proceedings, had urged the court to stay the High Court's observations. He termed it a "serious issue" in view of the statutory prohibition on child marriages.
The broader legal question remains unresolved. The interaction between Muslim personal law and statutes like the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, continues to be contested across India's judiciary. The latest order from Punjab and Haryana merely disposed of the protection petition with directions to the police.
