LAHORE : The Lahore High Court (LHC) has ruled that the Child Marriage Restraint Act 2026 cannot be applied retrospectively, setting aside an order that had declared a married girl underage and directed her transfer to a shelter home.
Justice Khalid Ibn-i-Aziz accepted a criminal revision petition filed by Sher Baz and Safina Khatoon and overturned a May 20, 2026, decision of the Sessions Court in Khushab. The court also dismissed a constitutional petition filed by Ahmed Sher, the father of Kiran Shaheen, allowing the girl to live wherever she chooses in accordance with her free will.
According to the court’s judgment, the Child Marriage Restraint Act 2026 came into force on May 11, 2026, while Kiran Shaheen’s marriage was solemnised on April 18, 2026. The marriage, therefore, took place before the new legislation became effective.
The court held that legislation cannot ordinarily be applied to events that occurred before its commencement. It observed that using a newly enacted law retrospectively to initiate legal proceedings would be contrary to established legal principles.
The Sessions Court in Khushab had previously declared Kiran Shaheen under the age of 16 and ordered her transfer to a shelter home.
However, the girl told a magistrate that she had married of her own free will and had not been abducted. She also refused to return to her father and expressed her desire to live with her husband.
In its judgment, the high court observed that proceedings under Section 552 of the Code of Criminal Procedure require the relevant legal conditions concerning alleged abduction and the girl’s age to be examined.
It further noted that if the alleged abducted girl disputes the claim of being underage before the court, the legal basis for continuing proceedings under Section 552 must be reassessed.
The judgment also clarified that Section 552 does not empower a court to keep a girl in a shelter home indefinitely. Holding someone against her expressed wishes without fulfilling the relevant legal requirements would be contrary to law.
The high court consequently allowed the criminal revision petition, annulled the Sessions Court’s order and affirmed Kiran Shaheen’s freedom to decide where she wishes to live.
