The Punjab and Haryana Supreme Court ruled that the application of the Child Marriage Prohibition Act of 2006 is secular legislation, and although Muslim personality law allows marriage after puberty, secular law would make no distinction on the Create the basis of religion.
In the present case, the petitioner married a Muslim boy. The petitioner was over 18 years old, but the boy, although a minor, had reached marriageable age according to Muslim personality rights.
The bank relied on the precedent of Hardev Singh versus Harpreet Kaur and stated that if the woman is over the marriageable age required by the Child Marriage Act, no offense can be established under that Act.
The bank allowed the application for protection, stating that if the verification of the age certificates reveals that the girl is under 18 years of age, action can be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Child Marriage Act.
In this case, the bank checked the age certificates issued by the parties and found that the girl was “just over 18 years old”. The Bank believed that although the boy’s age did not meet the legal age limit of the Child Marriage Act 2006, the petitioners’ life and liberty would be protected.
The bank discussed various rulings from various high courts relating to the gap between Indian law and personal law. This conflict was present but aims to do justice to the right-wing parties.