Prayagraj The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a series of writ petitions seeking quashing of the FIR against nine people accused of gang-raping twice under the guise of “nikah hilala”, including once when the woman was a minor, saying that when it comes to criminal law, “there is absolutely no place for pleading in personal laws”.
A division bench of Justice JJ Muneer and Justice Tarun Saxena was hearing the three petitions challenging the FIR, registered on December 9, 2025, in Amroha district of Uttar Pradesh, under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Act, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, and the Buxo Act at Sidnagli police station in Amroha district, alleging that incidents of sexual exploitation occurred over a period of nearly a decade.
According to the FIR, the victim was married in April 2015 when she was 15 years old and subsequently divorced in triple talaq in January 2016. A few months later, she married another man on the pretext of halala and was raped. In April 2017, her first husband married her again, then divorced her again in January 2021. Later, in February 2025, she was gang-raped by two men who claimed that the act was for the purpose of halal.
Besides the man she married the first time, the other accused named in the FIR are a cleric as well as the husband’s brother and nephew who allegedly raped the woman on the pretext of dalla.
“Nikah Hilala” is an Islamic practice whereby a divorced woman must marry another man, consummate him, and then divorce him before she can legally marry her ex-husband.
After dismissing the petitions during the July 1 hearing, the bench observed: “When it comes to criminal law, unless the law itself provides an exception, which it rarely does, there is absolutely no place for the plea in the personal laws governing marriage, etc., if a crime has been committed, intertwined with a marital relationship.”
During the hearing, the petitioners’ lawyer asserted that the “hilala marriage” is a valid religious practice, and that under the Personal Status Law, a minor’s marriage is not invalid but only voidable, and since the woman has not disavowed it within a year of reaching the age of majority, the marriage is binding.
However, the bench noted: “The constitutionality of halala is not in dispute before us, but if a minor girl, under the garb of halala, is subjected to carnal relations, depending on her desire to marry a man who has already divorced her, it will certainly attract the provisions of the POCSO Act.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Independent Thought v. Union of India, the court said the Supreme Court gave overriding effect to the Buxo Act, leaving no room for legal sex with a girl below 18 years of age. The Court also noted that this protectionist mandate has now been expressly included within Exception 2 of Article 63 of the Banking Regulations.
The court rejected the argument that some of the accused, including the clergyman who performed the marriage and some elderly relatives, had only marginal roles, and observed that all the accused were prima facie part of a joint enterprise, each playing a role that together constituted serious crimes under the law.
The Supreme Court considered that these allegations warranted a comprehensive police investigation, and rejected all relevant petitions.
