A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Achal Sachdev further observed that the age of marriage, for every citizen of the country, irrespective of religion, is same, as has been spelt out by the PCMA.

These observations were made while dismissing a writ petition filed by 19 individuals seeking to quash an FIR registered against them for allegedly assaulting and obstructing a Police and Child Line rescue team. The team was attacked when it intervened to stop the impending marriage of a 16-year-old Muslim girl in the Bulandshahr district

Seeking relief in the case, the petitioners argued that under the Shariat Law applicable to Muslims, a girl is competent to marry after she attains the age of puberty, generally regarded as 15 years. They contended that the PCM Act, 2006, would not affect the petitioners' personal law regarding marriage.

The bench, however, rejected this argument, as it noted that no personal law can wipe out the prohibition of child marriage brought about by the PCMA or the statutory effects of the POCSO Act.

The bench noted that if the marriage of a person below 18 years were permitted, carnal relations being almost inseparable from the institution of marriage, it would reult in acknowledged violation of the POCSO Act.

"The PCMA and the POCSO Act are statutes that are based on public health and national policy in this regard. They have a scientific understanding to them, legislatively translated into prohibitory statutes and there can be no escape from it for anyone", the Court said.

Acknowledging a division of opinion among various High Courts on this issue, the Bench stated that it was in "complete agreement" with the Kerala High Court's reasoning that no personal law can override the prohibition on child marriage.

The bench also referred to the Supreme Court's 2025 order, wherein the Top Court expressed doubt on the issue (whether personal laws can prevail over the PCM Act) pending passage of the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amending) Bill 2021, introduced in Parliament on 21st December 2021.

However, the division bench further noted that the said bill lapsed upon the dissolution of the 17th Lok Sabha, and there has been no authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court on the issue to date.

Turning to the specific facts of the case, the Court noted that there was a determined attempt by the minor's parents and the community to marry her off in violation of the PCMA.

The bench commended the Police and the Child Line Team for swinging into action to rescue the victim, stating that they were acting in the bona fide discharge of their duties to prevent a possible violation of the POCSO Act.

Refusing to quash the FIR, which detailed how the rescue team was abused, threatened, and forced to save their lives from the petitioners' aggression, the Court observed thus:

"The victim was forcibly taken away from their care and custody, till she was finally rescued. This is certainly a case where obstruction in the performance of duties of a government servant is prima facie made out. The other offences disclosed also require thorough investigation.”

Consequently, finding no good ground to interfere with the FIR impugned, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case title - Ruby and others vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 361