In a landmark ruling, the Allahabad High Court highlighted the deep-rooted patriarchal biases in India’s legal marriage age structure, stating that the disparity in marriageable age for men and women reflects a “vestige of patriarchy” that remains entrenched in modern law. This observation was made in the context of First Appeal No. 213 of 2018, where Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh dismissed an appeal challenging the dismissal of a suit to annul a marriage conducted in childhood after the legal time limit for annulment had lapsed.
The case has brought into focus the limitations imposed by the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (PCMA), especially regarding the legally permissible age for marriage and the set timeframe for annulling a marriage that took place during childhood.
Case Background
The marriage in question was solemnized in 2004 when the appellant was only 12 years old, and the respondent was 9. After reaching the age of 21 in 2013, the appellant filed a suit under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), seeking a declaration that the marriage was void. Later, the suit was amended under the PCMA, specifically Section 3, arguing that their marriage was invalid as it was a “child marriage” under Indian law. However, both the Family Court and subsequently the High Court dismissed the claim, citing that the plea was filed beyond the legally prescribed time limit for annulment.
Legal Issues and the Court’s Stand on Patriarchal Standards in Marriage Laws
The court’s decision rests on two pivotal legal issues:
1. Age Discrepancy in Marriage Laws: Under the PCMA, the legal definition of a “child” for marriage purposes is any male under 21 and any female under 18. This discrepancy has raised questions about why different ages are specified based on gender.
2. Annulment Time Limit: According to Section 3(3) of the PCMA, a party to a child marriage can seek annulment only within two years of reaching majority — 20 for females and 23 for males. Since the appellant filed the claim after surpassing this limit, the court found the plea to be time-barred.
The court underscored that the law, while attempting to protect children from early marriage, still retains gender-based discrepancies. It questioned the rationale for setting different ages for men and women to be considered marriage-ready, noting this practice as a historical hangover from patriarchal norms.
“The notion that men should be older at marriage reflects an outdated, patriarchal bias embedded in law, assuming that women require protection or maturity later in life,” the court observed, further adding that such legal distinctions continue to “perpetuate gender inequality.” The judges asserted that while the law punishes child marriage, it also upholds marriage as “voidable,” thus requiring those who seek annulment to act within a specific legal timeframe.
Appellant’s Arguments and the High Court’s Response
The appellant’s counsel argued that the PCMA’s age disparity creates legal obstacles and unfairly restricts the appellant’s right to annul the marriage. They posited that because the appellant was underage at the time of marriage, they should retain the right to void the marriage beyond the two-year limitation.
However, the court found these arguments unpersuasive, reiterating that the limitation period is a deliberate measure designed to ensure legal certainty. “This law demands certainty and stability in marital relationships, regardless of the historical bias in age limits,” stated the judges. They also referenced previous rulings which confirmed that the purpose of the PCMA is to deter child marriages while providing only a limited opportunity to nullify such marriages post-majority.
The appellant was represented by Advocates Anil Kumar Mehrotra and Srijan Mehrotra, with Ashwani Kumar Patel also part of the counsel. The respondent was represented by Gaurav Tripathi, Bindu Kumari, and Anurag Vajpeyi.
