The Delhi High Court has held that a subsequent marriage between a woman and the accused on attaining majority cannot retrospectively legalise sexual intercourse that allegedly took place when she was a minor, observing that an enduring relationship cannot retrospectively supply legal consent.

Justice Sanjeev Narula made the observations while refusing to quash a POCSO case against a man whose wife had sought termination of the proceedings on the ground that they were married, had a child and were living together happily.

The woman was below 18 when she left home and was subsequently found to be pregnant. She later attained majority, married the accused and had a child with him. The case was registered by her mother.

The Court noted that Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) defines a child as a person below 18 years. It noted that under Section 3, absence of consent is not an ingredient of penetrative sexual assault upon a child.

“Clause sixthly of Section 375 IPC likewise covers sexual intercourse with a girl below eighteen, with or without her consent. Willingness may explain the relationship; it does not take the alleged act outside the statute,” the Court observed.

It Court further held that Parliament had consciously prescribed a uniform age threshold and courts cannot substitute their own assessment of a particular child's maturity for the legislative choice.

It said that the statutory protection does not depend upon proof of grooming, deception or overt force.

“No such finding is made against the Petitioner here. The narrower point is that the absence of those circumstances does not, by itself, answer an allegation of sexual intercourse during minority. An enduring relationship cannot retrospectively supply legal consent,” the Court said.

Further, Justice Narula also rejected the relevance of the subsequent marriage between the parties while noting that the parties' marriage was solemnised on September 29, 2025, after the woman had attained 18 years of age but the alleged sexual intercourse and pregnancy related to the period when she was a minor.

“Their subsequent marriage as adults cannot determine the legality of sexual intercourse during her minority,” the Court said, adding that even a subsisting marriage would not displace POCSO Act.

The Court noted that the woman said that she had accompanied the accused willingly, had no grievance against him and that her mother, whose complaint had led to the registration of the FIR, also accepted the marriage and did not wish to pursue the case.

On this, the Court observed that the woman's present choice as an adult was “entitled to respect”. However, it distinguished between respecting her present choice and determining the legal consequences of alleged acts committed when she was a child.

The Court said the fact that she described the relationship as voluntary did not remove the foundation of the prosecution.

“To end the prosecution on the grounds advanced would allow subsequent marriage, parenthood and family acceptance to outweigh the protection afforded to her when she was a child,” the Court said.

It added that the protection afforded by law to a child “cannot depend simply on whether a relationship survives or eventually receives approval.”

Observing that there was a prima facie allegation of an aggravated offence committed during undisputed minority of the woman, the Court said:

“The Court is conscious of the painful consequence of refusing!relief: the woman for whose protection the law is invoked now sees the proceedings as a threat to the family she wishes to preserve. Her concern cannot be treated as legally irrelevant. Yet child protection remains central to this Court's assessment, and the hardship shown here does not persuade it to terminate an otherwise sustainable prosecution,” the Court said.

While dismissing the plea, it clarified that the observations were confined to the prayer for quashing and directed the Special Court to consider the charges, evidence and every defence available in law independently.