Bombay High Court ruled that marrying a minor does not exempt the accused from rape charges under the POCSO Act, dismissing a plea to quash an FIR.
Consent of a minor is irrelevant under POCSO, which prioritizes protecting children under 18 from sexual exploitation, regardless of subsequent marriage or childbirth.
The verdict reinforces strict enforcement against child marriage, highlighting its risks and aligning with broader judicial efforts to uphold child protection laws.
The Bombay High Court has firmly stated that marrying a minor girl cannot serve as a shield against rape charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Nagpur bench of the court dismissed a petition by a 29-year-old man seeking to quash an FIR against him and his family, despite the victim's subsequent marriage to the accused and the birth of their child.
Acccoridng to the hindu, the case stems from an FIR registered by Akola police in July 2025 against the man and his relatives under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), POCSO Act, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. The 17-year-old victim was allegedly subjected to forceful sexual assault while still a minor, leading to her elopement and marriage with the accused when she turned 18. The FIR came to light after reports of the victim's delivery of a baby boy surfaced, prompting police intervention.
The accused argued that the relationship was consensual, the marriage was legally registered post-majority, and the couple's child underscored their commitment, warranting quashing of the FIR to avoid family disruption. The victim herself appeared before the court, expressing no objection to dropping the case. However, Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and N.D. Deshpande rejected the plea, emphasizing that consent is irrelevant under POCSO for individuals below 18.
"The primary objective of the POCSO Act is to protect all children below the age of 18 from sexual assault, harassment, and child pornography, and to provide a supportive environment for such victims," the bench observed in its September 26 order. The court highlighted the accused's knowledge of the girl's minority status at the time of the alleged offenses, noting, "He ought to have waited till she attained 18 years of age. Taking her away from her legal custody itself constitutes an offense."
This decision aligns with the Supreme Court's stance in the 2025 Right to Privacy of Adolescents case, where the Union government opposed lowering the age of consent, arguing it would undermine POCSO's societal mandate. The bench also drew attention to the broader perils of child marriage and teenage pregnancy, which perpetuate cycles of exploitation and health risks for young girls.
