Km Farida Ansari and Anr. V. State of U.P Writ-C No. 36224 of 2026, 2026:AHC:195171 (Allahabad High Court, 14 September 2026)
Facts: Two adult woman, one Hindu and one Muslim, are in a an inter-faith same-sex live in relationship, sought protection from threats and harassment from private respondents and family members. The State further objected on the basis tradition structural of society. Appearing in person, both affirmed that they have chosen to live together wilfully.
Issue: whether same-sex partners have an article 21 right to live together and to police protection against interference.
Held: Petition allowed. The petitioner were allowed to live together and were provided with police protection against threats and harassment. Police must provide protection after verifying they are adults living voluntarily. Private respondents may seek recall if the documents prove forged.
Analysis: Relying on Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1 and Supriyo v. Union of India (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1348 (para 149(iv)), the Court affirmed queer couples’ right to a union or relationship flows from privacy, choice, autonomy and live without fear of threats from third parties threatening adults’ life and liberty. The State’s social-acceptability objection did not dilute this right.
2. State v. Munna Kumar CRL.A. 584/2011, 2026:DHC:7344-DB (Delhi High Court, Division Bench, 2 September 2026)
Facts : A 4½-year-old girl returned home bleeding after going to her neighbour Munna Kumar for tuition and told her mother he had “given pain” in her private part. Medical evidence showed a torn hymen, and semen was found on her underwear. The Trial Court acquitted him of rape but convicted him under Section 354 IPC, since she never said “penetration.” The State appealed.
Issue: Whether rape stood unproved merely because the child victim did not expressly depose to penetration.
Held: Appeal allowed. Acquittal under Section 376 set aside; respondent convicted under Section 376(2)(f) IPC. Sentence hearing listed for 10 September 2026.
Analysis: A child’s testimony cannot be judged by technical or anatomical terminology; its substance, circumstances and natural narration matter. Her childlike account, prompt disclosure to her mother, consistent Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, medical findings and FSL report formed a complete chain. Relying on State of Rajasthan v. Chatra (2025) 8 SCC 613 and State v. Inderpal, the Bench treated the omission as no discrepancy. The missing blood-group test was a mere investigative lapse, and the false-implication defence was contradictory and unproved.
3. Bilal & Anr. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi W.P.(CRL) 2976/2026, 2026:DHC:8343 (Delhi High Court, 23 September 2026)
Facts: A Muslim girl, aged 16 years 3 months, married Petitioner No. 1, then nearly 28, by nikah on 20 December 2024. In May 2026, eight months pregnant, her age surfaced at a hospital. FIR No. 189/2026 was registered under Section 64(1) BNS and Section 6 POCSO. She maintained the marriage was voluntary; the child was stillborn. Petitioners sought quashing, disciplinary action and compensation.
Issue: Whether a marriage valid under Muslim personal law, and the minor wife’s consent, take sexual intercourse outside POCSO and the BNS.
Held: Petition dismissed; quashing, disciplinary action and compensation declined. Nikah’s validity left open; no finding on guilt.
Analysis: Personal law may govern a marriage’s validity but cannot create an exception to penal law. Relying on Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 800 and Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 790, the Court noted that Section 63 BNS limits the marital exception to wives aged eighteen or above, and POCSO overrides other laws (Section 42-A). A minor’s consent and family approval are immaterial. Petitioners’ precedents were distinguished; Harmeet Singh (2026:DHC:3142) was confined to its exceptional facts.
THIS CASE SUMMARY IS WRITTEN BY MOHIT VERMA FROM NEW LAW COLLEGE , BHARATI VIDYAPEETH (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY)
