Court upholds Lahore woman’s conversion, marriage, rules underage unions punishable but still legally valid
ISLAMABAD:
The Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that although underage marriages may attract criminal liability under the Child Marriage Act of 1929, such unions cannot be declared void, finding 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 man is allowed to marry women belonging to the “People of the Book”, including Christian and Jewish women.
The ruling came in a case involving a girl from Lahore, Maria Bibi, who converted to Islam and married a Muslim man, Shehryar. The court declared her conversion and marriage valid, observing 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 still in force in parts of Pakistan – criminalizes marriages when one party is below the prescribed age, but does not make such marriages void or voidable. Instead, it prescribes penalties, including fines and imprisonment, for those who facilitate or engage in child marriages.
Read: Amendment to the Child Marriage Act
The court further ruled that issues related to the girl’s age or the authenticity of religious documents, such as those issued by a Darul Ifta, could not be considered in habeas corpus proceedings, which are limited to determining illegal detention.
He also made important constitutional observations, stating that the Federal Constitutional Court – not the Supreme Court – is the final forum for interpreting the Constitution. It held that all courts, including the Supreme Court, are bound by its decisions and that it is not obligated to follow precedents set by the supreme 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 claims regarding his daughter’s age. In the FIR, he stated that she was between 13 and 14 years old, while during the arguments, he claimed that she 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 gap that cast doubt on the veracity of the documents.
Learn more: Before 18 is not a crime, after 18 is not a cure: rethink
Above all, the court highlighted that the girl had appeared before a magistrate and unequivocally stated that she had married of her own free will and without any coercion.
Maria’s father had filed a kidnapping complaint in July 2015, alleging that she had been kidnapped. However, the case was dismissed after the girl said she was not kidnapped but had married voluntarily.
Subsequently, the father filed several petitions claiming that his daughter was a minor and was illegally detained, but these were rejected by all judicial authorities, culminating in the Constitutional Court’s decision confirming the marriage and conversion.
