PRAYAGRAJ, July 9 -- The Allahabad high court has held that the Muslim personal law principle recognising puberty as the age of marriage cannot override central laws such as the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, which criminalises sexual relations with a child. The court observed that the legal age of marriage is the same for every citizen, irrespective of religion. It further held that the Shariat law permitting a girl to marry on attaining puberty runs "clearly in the teeth of" the PCMA as well as the Pocso Act. In its July 1 judgment, a division bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Achal Sachdeva made the observations while dismissing a writ petition filed by Rubi and 19 others seeking quashing of an FIR registered against them for allegedly assaulting and obstructing a police and Childline rescue team. The team had intervened to stop the proposed marriage of a 16-year-old Muslim girl in Bulandshahr district. The court noted that there was a determined attempt by the minor's parents and members of the community to marry her off in violation of the PCMA. It commended the police and the Childline team for acting promptly to rescue the girl, stating that they were acting in the bona fide discharge of their duties to prevent a possible violation of the Pocso Act. According to the petitioners, under Shariat law, a girl is competent to marry after attaining puberty, generally regarded as 15 years of age. They argued that the PCMA would not override their personal law governing marriage. Rejecting the contention, the court held that no personal law can override the prohibition on child marriage under the PCMA or the statutory provisions of the Pocso Act. The bench observed that permitting the marriage of a person below 18 years would inevitably lead to a violation of the Pocso Act, as sexual relations are almost inseparable from the institution of marriage. "The PCMA and the POCSO Act are statutes that are based on public health and national policy in this regard. They have a scientific understanding to them, legislatively translated into prohibitory statutes and there can be no escape from it for anyone," the court said. Refusing to quash the FIR, which alleged that the rescue team was abused, threatened and forced to flee to save their lives, the court observed: "The victim was forcibly taken away from their care and custody, till she was finally rescued. This is certainly a case where obstruction in the performance of duties of a government servant is prima facie made out. The other offences disclosed also require thorough investigation." Finding no ground to interfere with the FIR, the high court dismissed the writ petition in its judgment....