The Allahabad High Court, in its ruling on October  25, 2024, criticized the existing legal disparity in the marriage age for men (21 years) and women (18 years), labeling it a remnant of patriarchy. The Court, led by Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh, argued that the additional three years granted to men impede women's educational and financial opportunities, calling for a legislative amendment to rectify this imbalance. The case originated from an appeal concerning the validity of a marriage between the appellant and repondent, dated 28.11.2004, when both parties were minors, with the appellant asserting his marriage was void under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Key details included the appellant’s and respondent's birthdates and the timeline regarding their respective ages at the time of marriage, highlighting the necessity for legal reform in this area.

The Division Bench highlighted that the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) does not provide for declaring child marriages void, although it allows prosecution of male participants. The minimum marriage age under the HMA aligns with the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA), which stipulates that marriages involving minors (under 18 for females and under 21 for males) are voidable. In a specific case, the parties were identified as 12 and 9 years old at thte time of their marriage in 2004. While the PCMA defines child marriage and allows either party to seek a declaration of voidness, such a declaration is optional and contingent upon the choice of one party. The PCMA provides processes for minors to initiate actions to declare their marriage void with a time frame up to two years after reaching the age of majority. Therefore, understanding the age at which a child reaches majority is pivotal in assessing the timeline for challenging a child marriage.

The PCMA does not define the terms “majority” and “attaining majority,” but it defines a “minor” per Section 2(f) as someone who has not reached their majority as outlined in the Majority Act, which establishes 18 years as the age of majority in India. Section 9 of the PCMA imposes penalties on “male adults” over 18 who marry a “child,” defined as a person under 18, with consequences including imprisonment and fines. The legislation establishes a distinction between male and female ages of majority; while females are considered adults at 18, males are regarded as minors until 21. This distinction aims to protect females from the dangers of child marriage while allowing males more time to prepare for marital responsibilities. The court acknowledges that these legislative choices are based on considerations for health and societal concerns related to child marriage.

The judgment highlights that the distinction made by Section 2(a) of the PCMA between males and females stems from patriarchal notions, undermining the positive intent of providing extended educational opportunities. It critiques the legislative assumption that males are the primary financial providers in marriages, thereby reinforcing gender inequality, particularly by not extending the same educational opportunity to females.

Although this raises concerns about equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the court refrains from commenting on the validity of the PCMA itself. Furthermore, the primary aim of the PCMA is to prevent child marriages and protect young girls from the risks associated with early childbirth. It emphasizes the need for strict enforcement of this legislation, noting that the appellant's interpretation of Section 3 does not adequately address this goal.

The interpretation of certain legal provisions may grant unfair advantages to males aged 18 to 21, allowing them to exploit “child marriage” situations. An 18-year-old male can marry an 18-year-old female but could void the marriage until he turns 23, leaving the female spouse vulnerable and without legal recourse. Even if an underage female validates the marriage at 18, she cannot contest it after 20, while the male retains the right to challenge it until 23, creating a significant imbalance. Legally, individuals aged 18 or older should have equal rights to declare their marriage invalid, with no justification to extend this right to males exclusively for three additional years. Since the appellant initiated the suit before turning 23, his legal action falls within the acceptable timeframe, confirming his capability to pursue the case.

This judgment is an eye opener and definitely also provides an exhaustive detail on how this discrimination has been continuing since such a long time. It has been thus very rightly pointed out in this notable judgment that the difference in legal marriage age for men and women is based on patriarchal basis, which needs to be uprooted. It thus certainly merits no reiteration that the time is ripe now to ensure that all such meaningless discrimination in age between men and women are eliminated at the earliest and both are treated on an equal footing.

The  above post  is an extract of a Judgement by the Allahabad High Court titled Sanjay Chaudhary v Guddan @ Usha in Case :- First Appeal No. - 213 of 2018 and cited in Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:173333-DB and is contributed by Advocate Sanjeev Sirohi. Udaipur Times does not endorse the correctness of the above post.