Husband of 16-year-old Muslim girl faces POCSO case after hospital visit during her pregnancy, Delhi High Court orders marriage under personal law cannot protect him

Delhi High Court has refused to quash a POCSO case against a man whose wife was 16 years and three months old when they had their nikah. Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed the couple's petition on September 23 and said a marriage under Muslim personal law cannot give a person protection from the child protection law.

The case began in May 2026 when the wife, about eight months pregnant, went to a government hospital for treatment. Her age came to the notice of authorities there. Police checked her school record, which showed her date of birth as September 19, 2008, and registered an FIR at Daryaganj police station under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the POCSO Act.

Can Muslim personal law or marriage protect a person from a POCSO case

The couple said a Muslim girl who has reached puberty can marry. They pointed to Mulla's Principles of Mahomedan Law, which presumes puberty at 15. Their argument was that once the marriage is valid, the physical relationship after it cannot be a crime.


The court did not agree. Justice Narula said personal law may decide whether a marriage exists, but it cannot create an exception to a criminal law when Parliament has made none. The court did not decide whether the nikah is valid, void or voidable. Those questions can go before the right forum.

Age of consent is 18 under POCSO and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

POCSO defines a child as any person below 18. Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita treats sex with a girl below 18 as rape, with or without her consent. The exception for husbands applies only when the wife is not below 18.

Justice Narula said the law has already drawn the line at 18. Courts cannot replace it with puberty or with a view on how mature a girl looks. In his words, marriage does not advance a child's age. The court relied on the Supreme Court's 2017 ruling in Independent Thought and the 2024 ruling in Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action.

Does the consent of a minor wife matter in a POCSO case

The wife has never said she was forced. She told police the marriage happened with the consent of both families. On June 5, she joined her husband's bail hearing by video from the labour room and said she wanted him by her side.

The court accepted, for this petition, that her account is true. It still said the consent of a child below 18 has no legal value. Justice Narula added that her views can matter for custody, welfare and bail, but they cannot change the offence itself. The court also said POCSO does not depend on a complaint from the child or her parents.

Can a High Court quash a POCSO case after marriage or family support

The couple relied on an April 2026 Delhi High Court ruling in Harmeet Singh. Justice Narula said that case stood on its own facts. There, the girl was about 17 years and two months old, the man was about 22, the couple had an infant and the State did not object to quashing.

In this case, the wife was 16 years and three months old at the nikah and the husband was nearly 28. Their child was stillborn on June 6. The court said quashing on this ground cannot become routine, and doing so here would add a marital exception to POCSO.

Do doctors have to report a pregnant girl below 18 to police

Justice Narula said the hospital information was not gratuitous interference in family life. Once doctors learn that a pregnant patient is below 18, the reporting rules under POCSO apply. Section 19 requires reporting of an offence, and Section 21 attaches consequences for failing to report.

POCSO accused asked for compensation or action against police

The couple also asked for action against the police officers and compensation for false implication and harassment. The court declined both, since the FIR was not unlawful.

It noted the grief over the stillbirth and the exhumation of the child for DNA profiling, directed on June 12 under Section 196(4) of the BNSS. It said the legality of that step is a separate question.

The court clarified that its remarks are only about the plea to quash the FIR. They are not findings on guilt. The trial court will decide on evidence, and the bail granted on June 5 continues.