Court upholds Lahore woman’s conversion and marriage, says minor unions carry penalties but remain legally valid
ISLAMABAD:
The Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that while underage marriages may give rise to criminal liability under the Child Marriage Act 1929, such unions cannot be declared void, holding that the law only provides for criminal consequences and does not invalidate the marriage itself.
In a detailed judgment written by Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, the court also held that under Islamic law, a Muslim can marry women from the “People of the Book,” including Christians and Jews.
The ruling came in a case involving a girl from Lahore, Maria Bibi, who had converted to Islam and married a Muslim, Shehryar. The court declared both her conversion and her marriage valid, noting that she had embraced Islam before the nikah and had submitted a formal declaration to that effect.
Explaining the legal framework, the court noted that the Child Marriage Act of 1929 (a colonial-era law that is still in force in some parts of Pakistan) criminalizes marriages in which either party is below the prescribed age, but does not declare them void or voidable. Instead, it prescribes punishments, including fines and imprisonment, for those who facilitate or contract child marriages.
Read: Amendment to the law on child marriage
The court further ruled that issues relating to the girl’s age or the authenticity of religious documents, such as those issued by a Darul Ifta, could not be examined in habeas corpus proceedings, which are limited to determining illegal detention.
He also made important constitutional observations, declaring that the Federal Constitutional Court – not the Supreme Court – is the final forum for constitutional interpretation. He held that all courts, including the Supreme Court, are bound by their rulings and that he is not bound to follow precedents set by the apex court if they are inconsistent with the Constitution or the law.
Addressing the facts of the case, the court pointed out contradictions in the father’s statements about his daughter’s age. In the FIR, he stated that he was between 13 and 14 years old, while during arguments he claimed that he was 12 years and nine months old.
The court also questioned the reliability of the documentary evidence presented, noting that according to NADRA records, the age difference between Maria and her younger sister was less than eight months, a discrepancy that cast doubt on the veracity of the documents.
Read more: Before 18 it is not a crime, after 18 it is not a cure: rethink
Importantly, the court emphasized that the girl had appeared before a magistrate and had unequivocally declared that she had married of her own free will and without any form of coercion.
Maria’s father had registered a kidnapping case in July 2015, alleging that she had been kidnapped. However, the case was later dismissed after the girl testified that she had not been kidnapped but had married voluntarily.
The father subsequently filed multiple petitions alleging that his daughter was a minor and illegally detained, but these were dismissed in all judicial forums, culminating in the Constitutional Court’s ruling confirming the marriage and conversion.
