Can a girl be old enough to become a wife at 15, but still be considered a child at 17 when POCSO is applied? That contradiction now sits at the heart of an ongoing judicial debate.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently dealt with a 26-year-old Muslim man and a 17-year-and-eight-month-old girl who had solemnised a nikah against her family’s wishes. While hearing their plea for protection, the Court reiterated the position under Muslim personal law that a person who has attained puberty, generally presumed at 15 in the absence of evidence otherwise, can marry a person of their choice.
The Court was dealing with their right to protection from threats, and that distinction matters. A minor who fears violence from her family has every right to seek police protection. Protecting her life and liberty, however, is very different from getting her married.
The complicated case of personal law
Under POCSO, anyone below 18 is a child. There is no exception simply because the child is married. The Kerala High Court made this clear in August 2026 when it refused to quash proceedings against a man who claimed that a 17-year-old girl was his legally wedded Muslim wife.
The Supreme Court had already moved in the same direction in Independent Thought v. Union of India. It held that a married girl below 18 cannot be denied the sexual protections available to an unmarried girl of the same age.
So what exactly is a Muslim family supposed to understand from all this? Can their daughter legally marry at 15 or stay a child until 18?
Muslims themselves will obviously not view this issue uniformly. Some may see the puberty rule as part of religious autonomy and personal law. Others may strongly support 18 as a universal minimum age for marriage.
But regardless of where one stands in that debate, every citizen is entitled to know what the law actually is. For me, this raises a very basic question. If the law says that a 17-year-old girl is still too young to legally consent to sex, how can we simultaneously argue that at 15 she is mature enough to enter marriage, a relationship where sex, pregnancy, financial dependence, and lifelong responsibilities can all follow?
POCSO is a criminal law, and its purpose is important: to protect children from sexual abuse. But we have also seen cases where parents use POCSO when an underage girl chooses a partner against their wishes. Courts have later quashed proceedings in some cases of this nature after looking at their particular circumstances.
Here’s an example: In Vijay Laxman Rotke v. State of Maharashtra in 2026, the Bombay High Court quashed proceedings in a case involving a girl who was 15 when the relationship began, and who later attained puberty, married the accused, and became pregnant. The court took into account that she had made no allegation of force and did not have a grievance against him. That does not mean that a minor’s consent becomes legally valid under POCSO, but it shows the complicated reality courts sometimes have to deal with.
The goal of POCSO is to protect minors, but there are also adolescent relationships where the minor girls are willing participants. The law is trying to protect children, while courts sometimes find themselves dealing with questions of their autonomy as well.
But the confusion in the Muslim marriage cases is slightly different. Instead of simply saying that a girl has a right to liberty and protection even when she is a minor, the argument starts giving precedence to personal law and puberty. What happens when that personal law comes directly in conflict with a criminal law like POCSO?
Also read: 25 years after 9/11, we are still stuck with blaming and defending an entire religion
Not an attack on religion
To be fair, when it comes to the rights of children and women, I don’t understand why even in the 21st century, we need to look at different personal laws to decide what basic rights someone should have. All Indian children, women and citizens should be treated equally and should have access to the same basic rights and protections. Just because a child is Muslim, what is good or bad for her, or what protection she deserves, does not suddenly change because of the community she was born into.
The deeper problem for me is the use of puberty itself as a measure of legal adulthood. Puberty is a biological event. It does not establish emotional maturity, financial independence, freedom from coercion or the ability to navigate an unequal relationship with an older adult. A minor getting her first period does not suddenly become mature or independent like an adult woman.
Religious traditions developed in particular historical and social circumstances, but societies change. Our understanding of childhood has changed. Education has changed. Women’s lives have changed. The nature of marriage itself has changed. Surely our interpretation of religious rules can recognise those realities without treating every attempt at reform as an attack on religion.
The Supreme Court may eventually have to settle the larger legal conflict between personal law, the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and POCSO. But perhaps the principle itself should not be so complicated.
If she is still a child at 17 when the law seeks to protect her, how can puberty alone make her an adult at 15 when the question is marriage?
Amana Begam Ansari is a columnist, writer, and TV news panellist. She runs a weekly YouTube show called ‘India This Week by Amana and Khalid’. She tweets @Amana_Ansari. Views are personal.
(Edited by Ratan Priya)