SC: No Desertion If POCSO Victim Marries Accused Peacefully

Supreme Court Clarifies POCSO Case: No Desertion When Victim Marries Accused and Lives Peacefully

Apex Court stresses importance of context in sensitive POCSO cases

Judgment highlights balance between law, victim’s autonomy, and marital rights

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi: October 31, 2025: In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) cannot be held guilty of desertion if the victim later marries him and continues to live with him peacefully. The case, titled K. Kirubakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025 INSC 1272), has drawn national attention because it touches on the intersection of criminal law, victim rights, and marital autonomy.

The Court’s decision underscores the need to interpret sensitive cases with nuance, especially when the victim has reached adulthood and voluntarily chosen to remain in the marriage.

Background of the Case

The accused, K. Kirubakaran, was charged under the POCSO Act, which criminalizes sexual offences against minors.
The victim, who was a minor at the time of the alleged offence, later married the accused.
The couple continued to live together without conflict, and the victim did not allege desertion or mistreatment.
Despite this, lower courts raised questions about whether the marriage could be considered valid and whether the accused had “deserted” the victim.
The matter reached the Supreme Court, which had to decide whether the accused could still be held guilty of desertion under these circumstances.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court bench made several important points:

Marriage and Cohabitation Matter: Since the victim married the accused and continued to live with him, the Court found no evidence of desertion.
Victim’s Autonomy: The Court emphasized that once the victim had reached adulthood, her choice to remain in the marriage must be respected.
Contextual Interpretation of POCSO: While the POCSO Act is a strict law meant to protect minors, the Court noted that each case must be examined in its factual context.
No Blanket Rule: The judgment clarified that this ruling does not dilute the POCSO Act but highlights that courts must consider the victim’s present circumstances.

Legal Context

The POCSO Act, 2012 was enacted to provide strong protection for children against sexual offences. It is a strict liability law, meaning consent of a minor is legally irrelevant.

However, in several cases across India, courts have faced situations where the victim later marries the accused. This creates a legal and moral dilemma:

On one hand, the law must protect minors from exploitation.
On the other, the victim’s later choices as an adult cannot be ignored.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case attempts to strike a balance between statutory protection and individual autonomy.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications:

For Victims:
- Recognizes the autonomy of victims who, upon reaching adulthood, choose to remain in a marital relationship with the accused.
- Prevents unnecessary criminalization of situations where the victim does not allege harm.
For Accused Persons:
- Provides relief in cases where the marriage is genuine and ongoing.
- Clarifies that desertion cannot be alleged if the couple continues to live together.
For Courts:
- Offers guidance on handling sensitive POCSO cases where marriage and cohabitation are involved.
- Encourages a fact-based, case-by-case approach rather than rigid application of the law.

Expert Opinions

Legal experts have described the ruling as nuanced and pragmatic. While some women’s rights activists caution that such judgments must not weaken the deterrent effect of the POCSO Act, others argue that the Court has rightly recognized the agency of adult victims.

Senior advocates note that the judgment does not create a loophole in the POCSO Act but instead ensures that justice is tailored to the facts of each case.

Broader Social Impact

The ruling reflects the complex realities of Indian society, where early marriages and relationships involving minors are still reported in many regions. By acknowledging the victim’s later choices, the Court has attempted to balance legal protection with social realities.

However, the judgment also raises important questions:

Should marriage be allowed to influence criminal liability under POCSO?
How can courts ensure that such marriages are truly consensual and not forced?

These debates are likely to continue in legal and social circles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in K. Kirubakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu is a landmark clarification in the interpretation of the POCSO Act. By ruling that no desertion can be alleged when the victim marries the accused and continues to live with him peacefully, the Court has highlighted the importance of context, victim autonomy, and marital rights.

While the ruling does not weaken the POCSO Act, it ensures that justice is delivered in a fair and balanced manner, respecting both the law’s protective intent and the lived realities of victims.