The Supreme Court of India is addressing whether the age of majority for men under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act should be 18 or 21 years while filing annulment cases. This inquiry arises from a woman contesting an Allahabad High Court ruling that favored her husband, declaring their childhood marriage void despite earlier limitations.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has issued a notice to address an important legal question: Should the age of “majority” for men, when computing the limitation period for seeking annulment of marriage under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (PCMA), be considered 18 years or 21 years?
This development came as a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah considered a petition by a woman challenging an Allahabad High Court judgment. The High Court had ruled in favor of her husband, declaring their marriage void even though the annulment suit was filed when the husband was 23 years old.
Read Also: Supreme Court Grants Notional Promotion to Three Officers in Jharkhand Judicial Service
Background of the Case
The couple was married as children: the husband was 12 years old, and the wife was 9 years old at the time of their marriage. In 2013, the husband sought annulment of the marriage under Section 12(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). He later amended the suit to invoke Section 3 of the PCMA, which the court allowed.
The Family Court dismissed the suit, citing:
- The husband had earlier initiated a divorce case under HMA, which was dismissed due to non-appearance, implicitly validating the marriage.
- The suit was barred by the limitation period.
- The couple had cohabited for a period, affirming the marriage’s validity.
The husband appealed to the Allahabad High Court, which overturned the Family Court’s decision in October 2024. It ruled that the annulment suit was filed within the limitation period, stating:
“The suit was instituted before the expiry of 2 years from the date the appellant ceased to be a ‘child,’ i.e., attained 21 years of age.”
The High Court declared the marriage void and directed the husband to pay ₹25 lakhs as permanent alimony to the wife but denied her request for residential accommodation.
Petitioner-Wife’s Arguments
The wife contends that the High Court misinterpreted the limitation period under PCMA. She argues:
- “The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act aims to discourage and annul child marriages, with a focus on protecting vulnerable female parties. The interpretation endorsed by the Hon’ble High Court dilutes this objective.”
- As per Section 3(3) of PCMA, a suit for annulment must be filed within 2 years of attaining majority, which for all individuals under Section 2(f) of the PCMA and Section 3(1) of the Majority Act, 1875, is 18 years.
She asserts that the husband attained majority in 2010 and filed for annulment in 2013, well beyond the limitation period.
Constitutional Concerns
The petitioner highlights that the High Court’s interpretation creates gender inequality:
- Men can file for annulment until age 23, while women are limited to age 20.
- “There is no constitutional, social, or biological justification for such differential treatment, which undermines the legislative protections the PCMA aims to extend to both genders.”
Broader Implications
The Supreme Court’s decision could significantly impact how child marriages are addressed under PCMA, particularly in terms of equality, legislative intent, and the protection of vulnerable parties.
The case will clarify whether the age of legal majority for filing annulment petitions under PCMA is uniformly 18 years, irrespective of gender, or whether different standards apply.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Saurabh Ajay Gupta, AOR, Ms. Srishti Prabhakar, Adv., and Mr. Ritik Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s): Mr. Apoorva Bhumesh, AOR, and Ms. Madhavi Khare, Adv
Case Title – Guddan Usha vs Sanjay Chudhary
Read the Judgement here:
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
