Muslim Girl Who Has Attained Puberty May Marry a Person of Her Choice Under Personal Law; Article 21 Protection Cannot Be Denied Over Family Opposition: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Name: Akbar Khan and Another v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 10 September 2026
Citation: CRWP-10657-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Aggarwal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that, under the principles of Muslim Personal Law referred to before it, a Muslim boy or girl who has attained puberty is competent to marry a person of his or her choice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, puberty is presumed upon completion of 15 years of age.
The Court observed that Article 195 of Mulla’s Principles of Mohammedan Law recognises the capacity of every Muslim of sound mind who has attained puberty to enter into a contract of marriage. Where such a person has attained puberty, the guardian cannot interfere with the choice of partner merely because the marriage is contrary to the wishes of the family.
The Court emphasised, however, that proceedings seeking protection of life and personal liberty do not require a conclusive adjudication upon the legal validity of the marriage. The immediate issue is whether the petitioners have expressed a genuine apprehension of danger and whether their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution require protection.
A couple cannot be deprived of protection to life and personal liberty merely because they have married or chosen to reside together against the wishes of their family members. Accordingly, the competent police authority must examine their representation and take necessary action if the asserted threat is found to warrant intervention.
The Court expressly refrained from pronouncing upon the validity of the petitioners’ marriage. Its direction was confined to consideration of their representation concerning the alleged threat to their life and liberty.
Summary: The petitioners approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking protection of their life and personal liberty. They sought a direction to the official respondents to consider their representation dated 30 August 2026 and requested that the private respondents be restrained from interfering with their life and liberty.
Both petitioners were Muslims and asserted that their relationship was governed by Muslim Personal Law. They stated that they had known each other for some time, developed affection for each other and decided to solemnise their marriage.
According to the petition, the father of petitioner No. 2 opposed the proposed marriage. Petitioner No. 2 consequently left her parental home on 22 August 2026, joined petitioner No. 1 and solemnised a Nikah with him on the same day in accordance with Muslim rites and customs.
Petitioner No. 1 was stated to be 26 years old, with his date of birth recorded as 4 September 1999. Petitioner No. 2 was 17 years and eight months old, with her date of birth recorded as 10 January 2009. Copies of their Aadhaar cards were placed before the Court.
The petitioners argued that under Muslim Personal Law, puberty and majority for the purpose of marriage are treated alike and that, in the absence of contrary evidence, puberty is presumed upon completion of 15 years. They relied upon Kammu v. State of Haryana and Others, 2010 (4) RCR (Civil) 716; Mustufa and Another v. State of Haryana and Others, CRWP-1100-2026, decided on 30 January 2026; and Zakir Hussain and Another v. State of Haryana and Others, CRWP-8693-2022, decided on 13 December 2023.
The petitioners alleged that respondent Nos. 4 to 7, who were members of petitioner No. 2’s family, opposed the relationship and posed an imminent threat to their safety. Although a representation seeking police protection had been submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Police on 30 August 2026, no decision had been taken upon it.
The High Court referred to Article 195 of Mulla’s Principles of Mohammedan Law, which states that a Muslim of sound mind who has attained puberty may enter into a contract of marriage. It further provides that puberty is presumed, in the absence of evidence, upon completion of 15 years.
Reliance was placed upon Kammu v. State of Haryana and Others, wherein a coordinate Bench had held that a Muslim boy or girl who has attained puberty is at liberty to marry a person of his or her choice and that the guardian has no right to interfere where the match is equal.
The Court also referred to Gulam Deen and Another v. State of Punjab and Others, 2022 (3) Law Herald 1848. That decision distinguished the question of protection under Article 21 from the question of the validity of the marriage. It held that the Court cannot disregard an asserted threat to a couple merely because they married against the wishes of their families.
The State did not dispute the factual position or the propositions emerging from the cited decisions. In these circumstances, the High Court considered it appropriate to direct the competent police authority to examine the petitioners’ representation.
Significantly, the Court did not issue a declaration validating the marriage. The order was expressly passed without commenting upon its validity and was confined to ensuring that the petitioners’ apprehension concerning their life and liberty received consideration in accordance with law.
Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of the protection petition without expressing any opinion on the validity of the marriage. It directed the Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), District Ludhiana, to consider the petitioners’ representation dated 30 August 2026 and take requisite action, if warranted by the facts and circumstances, in accordance with law.