Whether Exception 2 To S.375 IPC Available To A Muslim-Husband When Wife Is Below 18 Years Of Age, Kerala High Court Clarifies
The petitioner’s counsel urged that the de
facto complainant is legally wedded wife of accused-petitioner. Their marriage
took based on Islamic religious rights when she was 17 years and 1 month old.
Such marriage has been admitted by the de facto complainant, the brother of the de
facto complainant and the Kazi of the Mosque where the marriage was solemnized.
Hence, Exception 2 to S.375 IPC is applicable to the petitioner and this case
shall be quashed.
Whereas, the complainant’s counsel argued that
S.2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act 2012 declares that child means a person below
eighteen years of age. Also, S.6 of the said Act provides for aggravated
penetrative sexual assault as the accused-petitioner repeatedly forced sexual
acts on the de facto complainant (the victim) during the abduction,
continuously for four days. Therefore, he committed an offence inviting the
charge of S.376 IPC.
While hearing the arguments, the hon’ble Mr.
Justice Jobin Sebastain expressed that the effect of Islamic personal laws and
customs should be taken care while considering Exception 2 to S.375. The Court said that there is no
documentary evidence showing the solemnization of such marriage had taken place.
Undisputedly, the provisions of POCSO Act apply if one of the parties to the
marriage is a minor, irrespective of the validity or otherwise of the marriage
under personal laws.
The Court relied on its judgment in Khaledur
Rahman v. State of Kerala & Anr. [2022 KHC Online 913]. A extract hereby
given as, “The POCSO Act is a special statute enacted specifically for the protection
of children from sexual offences.” …… “Marriage is not excluded from the sweep
of statute, …. .”
The court said that S.2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act
defines child as any person below eighteen years of age. Also S.42A of the Act
provides an overriding effect to this act over other acts or personal laws
unless contrary is allowed by any custom or usage. The allegations in the case
prima facie constituted the ingredients required to attract the offences
alleged under the POCSO Act. The ground of exception 2 of S.375 can not be
allowed since no documentary proof of marriage has been submitted to the Court.
Moreover, the High Court emphasized on judgment
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Independent Thought v. Union Of India & Anr.
(2017) 10 SCC 800, where the SC considered the applicability of the said
exception in the case of married girl aged 15 to 18 years and held that the
said exception was violative of the Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution
of India, contrary to constitutional morality and human rights concepts and
inconsistent with pro-girl child statutory provisions in force. Further, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court applied a harmonious and purposive interpretation that
exception 2 of S.375 IPC provides that “sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a
man with his own wife, not being under 18 years of age, is not rape.” Thereby
aligning with constitutional and statutory philosophy.
Hence the Court held that on plain reading of
the allegations contained in the First Information Statement (FIS) and the
materials accompanying the final report, if accepted at the face value disclose
the commission of an alleged offence. The disclosure of a cognizable offence
makes it mandatory to register an FIR as mandated in Lalita Kumari v. State of
U.P. (2017) 2 SCC 1. Hence it is not suitable case to quash under S.528 BNSS.
The court dismissed the petition.
Legal Citation: X v. Y (Judgment in the CRL MC No. 8899 of 2024 filed at High Court of Kerala and decided on 19.08.2026)
Comments