Published on: 10th October 2025
Authored by: Ritika Dhirayan
IILM University, Gurugram
Court: In the High Court of Karnataka
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar, J.
Date of Judgment: January 12, 2022
Relevant Provisions/Statutes: Section 439 of Cr.P.C., Sections 9 and 10 of Child Marriage Restrain Act, Sections 4 and 6 of Protections of Child from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (POCSO Act)
Brief Facts:
“This petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused No. 1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Crime No. 206/2022 of K.R. Puram Police Station, Bengaluru City, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 9 and 10 of Child Marriage Restrain Act and Sections 4 and 6 of Protections of Child from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO ACT’) pending on the file of the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru.”
“The allegation discloses that on 16.06.2022, the victim, who is the wife of the petitioner, approached the Primary Health Centre in Ramamurthy Nagar for medical checkup and on examination, it is found that she was pregnant. Further, it is also revealed that her date of birth is 27.07.2004 and she was aged about only 17 years.”
“The respondent No. 2 herein being a Sub-inspector of Police of K.R. Puram Police Station has lodged a complaint against the petitioner on the basis of information furnished by the Medical Officer regarding the petitioner committing offence punishable under Sections 9 and 10 of Child Marriage Restrain Act and Sections 4 and 6 of Protections of Child from Sexual Offence Act 2012. On the basis of the complaint, the crime came to be registered and later on, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to the judicial custody[1].”
Issues:
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail despite the allegations under the Child Marriage Restraint Act and POCSO Act, considering the age of the girl, her consent, and the circumstances of marriage.
Judgement:
The court “allowed the bail petition”.
“The petitioner/Accused No. 1 is directed to be released on bail in respect of Crime No. 206/2022 of K.R. Puram Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 9 and 10 of Child Marriage Restrain Act and Sections 4 and 6 of Protections of Child from Sexual Offence Act 2012 on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions that —
Conditions Imposed:
- “He shall not indulge in any of the criminal activities”
- “He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.”
- “He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court, without prior permission[2].”
Ratio Decidendi Obiter Dicta:
- The court noted that:
- “Looking to these facts and circumstances, there is no serious dispute regarding the marriage as the petitioner himself has produced the relevant documents before the Trial Court regarding the marriage.”
- “Considering the relationship of marriage, in my considered opinion, there is no impediment for admitting the petitioner on bail.”
- “Further victim being pregnant, requires proper support and petitioner can take care of his wife.”
- It also held:
- “Though she asserts that without her consent, marriage was solemnized, there is no evidence to show that she has raised any objections and the prima-facie, it is evident that she is also a consenting party though she is under the influence of her parents.”
- “The provisions of the POCSO Act is a Special Act and it overrides personal law and under POCSO Act, the age for involving in sexual activities is 18 years.
Final Decision:
The final decision of the court was to allow the bail petition. The court enlarged the petitioner, Aleem Pasha, on bail in respect of Crime No. 206/2022 of K.R. Puram Police Station. The petitioner was directed to execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The bail was granted subject to the following conditions:
- He shall not indulge in any criminal activities.
- He shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly.
- He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
This decision was based on the circumstances that there was no serious dispute regarding the marriage, the petitioner was capable of taking care of his pregnant wife, and the provisions of law pertaining to age and consent were considered[3].
Impact of the Case:
This case holds significant societal implications, especially concerning child rights, marriage laws, and modern legal interpretations of age-related issues in India. Its impact on society can be comprehensively understood across various dimensions, including legal, social, cultural, and policy-oriented perspectives.
Legal and Judicial Impact:
This case underscores the robustness of India’s legal framework in safeguarding minors from child marriages and sexual exploitation, even when traditional or religious practices might suggest otherwise. The Court’s rejection of certain arguments based on religious or customary laws, such as the Muslim law’s puberty criterion, reaffirms the precedence of constitutional and statutory provisions like the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (PCMA), and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
By asserting the POCSO Act, a special law with primacy over personal laws, defines the age of consent as 18 years, the Court highlights the importance of uniform standards for protecting minors. This judgment sets a precedent that statutory laws will take precedence over personal or religious laws where child rights are involved. Such a stance reinforces the accountability and does not justify child marriage under religious or cultural norms, thus proactively protecting minors from exploitation.
Furthermore, the Court’s decision to grant bail, despite the serious allegations under child marriage and sexual offence laws, while emphasizing conditions to prevent tampering of witnesses and further criminal activity, underscores a balanced approach. It reflects the judiciary’s role in ensuring that justice is dispensed fairly without prejudicing fundamental rights, even in sensitive cases.
Social Impact:
On a societal level, this case raises awareness about the grave consequences of child marriage, such as health risks, lack of educational opportunities, and increased vulnerability to sexual and domestic violence. The Court’s stance implicitly discourages societal acceptance of child marriage, which is still prevalent in many parts of India due to cultural, economic, or traditional reasons.
By highlighting that even if the marriage was solemnized with the minor’s consent or under customary laws, it does not negate the statutory violations, the judgment advocates for a shift in societal perceptions. It reinforces the importance of respecting a minor’s rights and autonomy and emphasizes that societal norms should align with progressive and protective legal standards.
This case also serves as an educational tool for communities, parents, and guardians about the legal repercussions of child marriage. It emphasizes that marriage laws are not just about rituals but are stringent for the protection of minors’ physical, emotional, and psychological well-being. The societal message is clear that the child marriage is a serious offense that can lead to criminal prosecution, and acceptance or justification of it under religious or cultural grounds is no longer acceptable[4].
Cultural and Ethical Considerations:
India’s culturally diverse society often reconciles traditional practices with modern laws. This case exemplifies the ongoing tension but ultimately upholds the need for change. It challenges deeply rooted cultural practices by affirming that the well-being and rights of children override customary considerations. The judgment encourages communities to redefine their practices in accordance with constitutional morality and human rights standards.
It also prompts ethical debates about personal freedom versus state intervention. While respecting cultural diversity, the case reiterates that the rights of children to protection from exploitation and child marriage take precedence over traditional customs. This makes the society ethic to prioritizes children’s rights and health over potentially harmful customs.
Policy and Reform Implications:
From a policy perspective, the case emphasis on stronger enforcement of child protection laws and more vigilant monitoring of marriage practices. It highlights the necessity for effective implementation of the PCMA and POCSO Act, along with awareness programs targeting vulnerable sections of society.
Moreover, this decision can influence policymakers to refine existing laws, strengthen child protection mechanisms, and promote educational campaigns aimed at eradicating child marriage. It also underscores the need for better reporting and investigation systems to ensure that violations are promptly addressed[5].
[1] Aleem Pasha v. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1588 (Karn. HC Oct. 12, 2022)
[2] Aleem Pasha v. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1588 (Karn. HC Oct. 12, 2022)
[3] POCSO Act Overrides Muslim Personal Law: Karnataka High Court, Bar & Bench (June 19, 2024), https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/pocso-act-overrides-muslim-personal-law-karnataka-high-court
[4] POCSO Act Is a Special Law Which Can Override Any Personal Law, SCC Online (Nov. 1, 2022), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/11/01/karnataka-high-court-pocso-special-law-override-personal-law-legal-news-legal-research-updates/
[5] POCSO Act Is a Special Law Which Can Override Any Personal Law, SCC Online (Nov. 1, 2022), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/11/01/karnataka-high-court-pocso-special-law-override-personal-law-legal-news-legal-research-updates/
