The Bombay High Court recently made a crucial decision, refusing to dismiss a rape case against a 29-year-old man. The court stated unequivocally that simply marrying a minor girl and having a child with her does not excuse an individual from facing charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Justices Urmila Joshi Phalke and Nandesh Deshpande, presiding over the High Court’s Nagpur Bench, rejected the man’s argument that his relationship with the 17-year-old girl was consensual and that their marriage was formally registered only after she turned 18. The ruling, delivered on Friday, September 26, 2025, underscores a vital legal principle.
The court firmly asserted that under the POCSO Act, the concept of ‘factual consent’ holds no relevance in relationships involving minors. This legal stance is critical for protecting young individuals.
An application by the man and his family, requesting the quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) filed against them by Akola police in July 2025, was consequently denied.
The charges against them include violations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the POCSO Act, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
According to the prosecution, the victim was just 17 when the marriage took place and she subsequently gave birth to a child in May 2025.
Disturbingly, the victim was married to the accused after her family discovered she had been sexually assaulted by him.
The accused maintained that their relationship was consensual, and the marriage was officially registered only after the girl reached 18 years of age.
He also argued that prosecuting and punishing him would lead to suffering for the victim and their child, potentially causing societal ostracization.
The girl herself testified, stating she had no objection to the FIR being dismissed.
However, the Bench highlighted that the fundamental purpose of the POCSO Act is to shield all children under 18 from sexual assault, harassment, and child pornography, while also fostering a supportive environment for victims.
The High Court reiterated that ‘The POCSO Act was specifically enacted to protect children,’ acknowledging that the broader question of the appropriate age for ‘adolescent love’ remains under consideration by the Supreme Court.
Despite the accused and the victim girl’s assertion that the marriage adhered to Muslim rites and religion, the High Court noted the undeniable fact: she was below the legal age of 18 at the time of the marriage.
Furthermore, the court pointed out that the victim had not even reached 18 years of age when she gave birth to her child.
The Bench remarked that the accused, being 27 years old at the time of marriage, should have been aware of the legal requirement to wait until the girl turned 18.
The High Court firmly stated that the birth of a child does not permit the court to ‘brush aside’ the accused’s illegal actions.
Emphasizing the Act’s scope, the High Court clarified, ‘The POCSO Act is gender-neutral and criminalizes sexual activity involving individuals below the age of 18. Under this Act, genuine consent in a relationship between minors is irrelevant.’
Ultimately, the court declined to quash the FIR against the man and his family, concluding that the case did not meet the criteria for such an action.