Divorce — Section 13B HMA & POCSO · 20 July 2026
Goyram Barman v. Madhumita Barman: Divorce Court Cannot Direct POCSO FIR Over Historical Child Marriage Allegation
High Court at Calcutta · 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 293; FA 46 of 2026
Download the full judgment (PDF)
Enter your name and WhatsApp number to get the download link. We'll also let you know on WhatsApp if we can help with this case — filing, tracking, or anything else — no obligation either way.
We use this only to send the link and to follow up about this case. See our privacy policy.
A husband and wife jointly filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. While it was pending, the trial judge — who also held the position of Special POCSO Judge for the district — noted that the wife had been a minor at the time of the marriage, years earlier, and on that basis directed the police to register a criminal case against the husband under the POCSO Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, dismissing the mutual consent petition itself.
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court set aside that order. It held that a court hearing a Section 13B mutual consent divorce petition cannot go beyond the limited scope of those proceedings to direct registration of a criminal case — doing so would mean the court effectively acting as investigator, complainant and judge in the same matter. The Court quashed the direction for a POCSO FIR and the consequential police action, and sent the mutual consent divorce petition back to be decided on its own terms.
General information, not legal advice. This is a plain-language summary for awareness only. Every case turns on its own facts, and this judgment does not decide how a court will rule in your matter. For advice on your own case, speak to an independent advocate — MyCaseFile is not a law firm and does not interpret judgments for anyone's case.