Court upholds conversion, marriage of Lahore woman, says minors’ unions bear fines but remain legally valid
ISLAMABAD:
The Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that while underage marriages may invite criminal liability under the Child Marriage Act, 1929, such unions cannot be declared void, holding that the law only contains criminal consequences and does not invalidate the marriage itself.
In a detailed judgement, authored by Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, the court also ruled that under Islamic law, a Muslim man is allowed to marry women from the “People of the Book”, including Christians and Jews.
The ruling came in a case involving a Lahore-based girl, Maria Bibi, who had converted to Islam and married a Muslim man, Shehryar. The court declared both her conversion and marriage valid, noting that she had converted to Islam before the nikah and had made a formal declaration to that effect.
Explaining the legal framework, the court noted that the Child Marriage Act, 1929 – a colonial-era law still in force in parts of Pakistan – criminalizes marriages where one of the parties is below the prescribed age, but does not make such marriages null or void. Instead, it prescribes penalties, including fines and imprisonment, for those who facilitate or enter into child marriages.
Read: Amendment of the Child Marriage Act
The court further ruled that questions regarding 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 cases, which are limited to establishing illegal detention.
It also made significant constitutional observations, declaring that the Federal Constitutional Court – not the Supreme Court – is the final forum for constitutional interpretation. It held that all courts, including the Supreme Court, are bound by its decisions and that it is not bound to follow precedents set by the apex court if they are contrary to the Constitution or statutory law.
The court referred to the facts of the case and pointed to 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 arguments he claimed that she was 12 years and nine months old.
The court also questioned the reliability of the documents produced, 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 authenticity of the documents.
Read more: Before 18 is not a crime, after 18 is not a cure: rethinking
It is important that the court emphasized that the girl had appeared before a judge and stated unequivocally 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 abducted. However, the case was later dropped after the girl testified that she had not been kidnapped, but had married voluntarily.
Subsequently, the father filed several petitions claiming that his daughter was a minor and illegally detained, but these were rejected in all legal forums, culminating in the Constitutional Court ruling upholding the marriage and conversion.
