Recently, the Delhi High Court has thrown up a difficult clash between law and lived reality, a case where a teenage girl, now a young mother, appeared in court urging that no prosecution be continued against the man she considers her husband. The matter stems from an FIR registered after a domestic violence call on helpline 181, where police discovered that the girl, then a minor, had been living with the accused as husband and wife, claiming to have married in March 2023 with family consent.
Once produced before the Child Welfare Committee, her age verification revealed her birth year is 2006, placing her at 16 years and 5 months at the time of the relationship. She was later found to be over two months pregnant, leading to registration of offences under Section 376 IPC, the POCSO Act, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. Yet, during investigation, her Section 164 CrPC statement contained no allegation of rape, force, coercion or pressure, and she clearly stated that she did not want any legal action against her husband or in-laws.
Before the High Court, the girl, now an adult, arrived with her infant born in January 2024 and reiterated that she lives peacefully with the accused’s family, considers him her husband, and does not support the prosecution. Her demeanour, the Court noted, was composed and voluntary, with nothing suggesting fear or pressure.
However, the Court was confronted with a core legal dilemma: the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) treats any sexual act with a person below 18 as an offence per se, irrespective of consent or willingness. The statutory framework deliberately excludes “consent” when the victim is a child, proceeding on the premise that a minor lacks legal capacity to consent to sexual activity. The judge observed that Parliament has fixed the age of consent at 18, and courts cannot craft an exception for “near-majority consensual relationships” without stepping into the domain of legislation.
The Court also highlighted an institutional concern that the case implicated not just the couple but also the parents of both sides under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. Quashing the FIR at the threshold, it noted, could risk sending a signal that underage marriages and sexual relationships with minors may be retrospectively legitimised if the couple later presents themselves as a settled family. What appears as “voluntary” participation by a 16-year-old, the Court cautioned, might in reality reflect family or societal pressure after pregnancy.
Against this backdrop, while acknowledging the emotional weight of the young mother’s plea to protect her family, the Court emphasised it was bound by the statutory mandate and could not carve out an exception based on equity alone. The petition to quash the FIR was accordingly dismissed, with a clarification that the observations are confined to this stage and will not influence the trial on merits.
Case Title: Prince Kumar Sharma and Others V. the State NCT of Delhi and Another
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 7145/2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjeev Narula
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv Vishal Kumar, Adv. Pawan Kapoor, Adv.Shubhangi Singh.
Counsel for the Respondent: AAP Hemant Mehla , SI Pooja
Picture Source :
