FCC rules child marriages punishable but not void under law

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 provides only for penal consequences and does not invalidate the marriage itself. In a detailed judgment authored by Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, the court also held that under Islamic law, a Muslim man is permitted 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, 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, 1929 -- a colonial-era law still in force in parts of Pakistan -- criminalises marriages where either party is below the prescribed age, but does not render such marriages void or voidable. Instead, it prescribes punishments, including fines and imprisonment, for those facilitating or contracting child marriages. Read: Amendment in child marriage act The court further ruled that questions 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 unlawful 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 rulings, and that it is not obligated to follow precedents set by the apex court if they are inconsistent with the Constitution or statutory law. Addressing the facts of the case, the court pointed to contradictions in the father’s claims regarding his daughter’s age. In the FIR, he stated she was between 13 and 14 years old, while during arguments, he claimed she was 12 years and nine months old. The court also questioned the reliability of 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 is not a crime, after 18 is not a cure: rethinking Importantly, the court emphasised that the girl had appeared before a magistrate and stated unequivocally that she had married of her own free will and without any coercion. Maria’s father had registered a kidnapping case in July 2015, alleging that she had been abducted. However, the case was later dismissed after the girl testified that she had not been kidnapped but had married voluntarily. Subsequently, the father filed multiple petitions claiming that his daughter was underage and was being unlawfully detained, but these were dismissed at all judicial forums, culminating in the Constitutional Court’s ruling upholding the marriage and conversion.