Bombay High Court: An application was filed by the applicant for quashing the proceedings pending under Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the ‘POCSO Act’) and Sections 9 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and stated that there was consensual love relation between him and the 17-year-old girl. The Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi* and Sanjay A. Deshmukh, JJ., rejected the application and held that unless the matter was clarified by the Central Government upon the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Right to Privacy of Adolescents, In Re, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1200 (‘Right to Privacy of Adolescents Case’), the Court would not consider cases relating to consensual adolescent relationships.
Background:
An FIR was filed by a police officer after getting the information from the hospital authorities that Respondent 3, who was a minor aged 17 years and 6 months, got married to the applicant, became pregnant and delivered a child on 13-1-2024. But Respondent 3 in her statement to the police said that the applicant was distantly related to her and that there was a love affair between them. Because both the families did not favour their marriage, they ran away and got married in a temple in 2023 by exchanging garlands. When they went back to the applicant’s house, they were not taken inside and therefore they rented a room at Killari where the girl got pregnant. In her ninth month of pregnancy, the applicant took her to her parental home and her parents admitted her to the hospital on 13-1-2024 where she gave birth to a daughter.
Respondent 3 in the affidavit-in-reply reiterated that at the time of marriage she was of understanding age and decided to get married after knowing the consequences. She further stated that if the applicant was prosecuted and punished then she and her daughter would suffer as there was no one to look after them and it was less likely that the applicant’s parents would accept her. Therefore, she submitted that she had no objection if the FIR and the proceedings against the applicant were quashed and set aside.
However, it was contended on behalf of Respondent 1 that the applicant was 27 years old and got married to Respondent 3 in 2023 knowing that she was a minor and that neither of their parents agreed to it. Thereafter, he kept physical relations with the girl and her consent could not be considered as consent within the four corners of the law. It was further submitted that if the case was quashed, the purpose of enacting the POCSO Act would be defeated.
Analysis:
The Court remarked that the instant case was a classic example wherein the burning issue of child marriage was involved but the law on the same was not yet settled. The Court referred to Right to Privacy of Adolescents Case (supra), wherein the Supreme Court showed concern regarding criminalization of consensual adolescent relationships under the POCSO Act.
The Court emphasised that there were scientific reasons for making the rule for the age of marriage, but child marriages were taking place despite the Government’s efforts. Teenage pregnancy was another social problem which led to complications related to pregnancy and even death. There was also a higher risk of premature births of children to minor mothers with other health problems.
The Court took note that the girl was aware of her age, and she ran away with the applicant when the families did not support their marriage. They got married by exchanging garlands in a temple, but neither was she able to give the date of the marriage nor the name of the priest who performed the rituals. The Court also noted that the applicant was around 26 years of age at the time of the alleged marriage and despite the knowledge that the girl was a minor, he took her away from the legal custody of her parents.
The Court observed that if they accepted that a major boy of age 25 years on-wards took away a girl who was a minor and then came with the defence of adolescent love, then it would not be a good sign from the legal point of view, because particular Acts were legislated with certain aims and objects. The Court relied on Supreme Court’s decision in Anversinh v. State of Gujarat, (2021) 3 SCC 12, wherein it was held that “where a minor girl under Section 361 IPC was taken or enticed from the keeping of her lawful guardian without their consent, her own consent was not a valid defence to the charge of kidnapping”.
The Court thus rejected the application and held that unless the things were clarified by the Central Government in relation to consensual adolescent love relations, it would not consider such cases. It was further stated by the Court that the case was not fit to exercise the powers vested in them by Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
[X v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 2514 of 2024, decided on 25-6-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi
For the Applicant: Dhananjay M. Shinde, Advocate.
For the Respondents: V.K. Kotecha, A.P.P. for Respondents 1 and 2;
Narayan Y. Chavan, Advocate for Respondent 3.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
