The Allahabad High Court has refused to quash an FIR lodged in a case involving the alleged kidnapping and marriage of a minor girl, holding that child marriage is a “social evil” that must be “eradicated from this country.”
Stressing that the law exists to protect childhood from being sacrificed at the altar of premature marriage, the Court observed that,
“A girl married before 18 does not merely enter matrimony, she exits opportunity.”
It further remarked that,
“Eradication of child marriage is not merely a statutory goal, it is a constitutional imperative. The law protects childhood, so that it may blossom into informed adulthood. This Court will not permit this protection to be diminished.”
The order was passed by a Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Dr. Ajay Kumar-II while dismissing a criminal writ petition filed by C. Ansari and 2 others seeking quashing of an FIR registered against them. The petitioners were represented by Advocate M.J. Akhtar.
Read also: https://practicinglawyer.in/allahabad-hc-historic-judgment-e-booklets/
The FIR was lodged at Mahuwadeeh Police Station, Deoria district, on April 2, 2026, under Sections 137(2), 87, 61(2), and 316(2) of BNS.
The complainant, mother of the girl, alleged that her daughter, aged around 15 years and studying in Class IX, had been enticed away by petitioner no. 2, Azad Ansari, with the intention of marriage.
According to the FIR, the girl had also taken jewelery and cash worth Rs.20,000 from the house before leaving.
The prosecution alleged that the accused, along with family members, concealed the girl after taking her away from lawful guardianship.
Read also: https://practicinglawyer.in/allahabad-hc-rejects-death-certificate-plea/
The FIR further stated that although the complainant approached the local police and later informed the Superintendent of Police, no action was taken, following which the FIR came to be registered pursuant to an order passed under Section 173(4) BNSS by the competent magistrate.
Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioners argued that the girl had voluntarily married Azad Ansari according to Muslim rites on March 9, 2026, and was residing with him of her own free will and without any force or coercion.
It was also contended that she was a major and had earlier been forced into another marriage against her wishes by her family.
Rejecting the plea, the Bench noted that the girl’s date of birth recorded in her school records was August 30, 2011, making her barely 14 years and 7 months old at the time of the FIR.
The Court observed that documentary evidence relating to age overrides medical opinion and held that the consent of a minor girl “is immaterial” in the eyes of the law.
The Court also took note of the girl’s statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, wherein she admitted that she had left home after speaking to petitioner no. 2 over the phone and thereafter travelled with him to Gorakhpur and Deoria.
According to the Bench, these facts prima facie disclosed “an element of persuasion” on the part of the accused, thereby attracting ingredients of kidnapping and inducement for marriage.
Significantly, the Court expressed serious concern over the increasing incidence of child marriages in Uttar Pradesh and observed that police authorities routinely invoke kidnapping or POCSO provisions but rarely prosecute persons responsible for solemnizing child marriages under Sections 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
The Bench remarked that religious and social organizations often rely upon Aadhaar cards or affidavits to conduct such marriages despite settled legal principles that such documents are not conclusive proof of age.
“An affidavit sworn by such a minor girl child that she is major cannot make such a girl child a major one,” the Court said.
In a significant direction, the High Court ordered the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to issue statewide instructions ensuring that whenever child marriage comes to the notice of police authorities, whether through complaint, investigation, or suo motu knowledge, strict proceedings under Sections 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act are initiated against all persons responsible for solemnizing or facilitating such marriages.
The Court also directed the investigating officer in the present case to examine the role of every individual involved in conducting or abetting the alleged Nikah and proceed against them in accordance with law.
Finding no merit in the plea for quashing the FIR, the Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition.
Case: C. Ansari and 2 others vs State of U.P. and 3 others
Case No: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. – 8155 of 2026
Date of Order: 13.05.2026
Status: Dismissed
