The Supreme Court has agreed to examine a substantial issue related to the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA), focusing on the conflicting age thresholds for marriage and annulment, particularly when applied to males. The Court's review comes in response to a woman's challenge against an Allahabad High Court ruling that annulled her marriage, despite her husband's petition being filed beyond the time limit prescribed by law.
The crux of the matter lies in Section 3 of the PCMA, which allows for the annulment of child marriages but sets specific timelines for filing a petition. Under the current law, a child marriage is not automatically void but may be annulled at the option of the minor spouse within two years of reaching the age of majority. For females, this means up until the age of 20, while for males, the situation is more complex due to a discrepancy in the legal ages for adulthood and marriage. Males are considered to have reached adulthood at 18 but are only legally allowed to marry at 21.
In this case, the woman’s marriage was solemnized in 2004 when she was just nine years old, and her husband was 12. After the husband filed for divorce in 2013 and later invoked the PCMA to annul the marriage, the Allahabad High Court ruled that the annulment could proceed, noting that the husband, having turned 21, was still within the legal scope for filing the petition.
However, the woman contends that this interpretation misapplies the law and extends the window for annulment beyond the intended period. "Interpretation and application of Section 3 of the PCM Act as rendered by the HC in its judgment extends the limitation period for filing a suit to void a child marriage up to the age of 23 for a male. This is in direct conflict with the legislative purpose, constitutional principles and the protective ethos of the PCM Act," the woman argued in her petition.
The woman further asserts that the High Court failed to differentiate between the age of legal capacity to marry and the age of legal capacity to initiate legal proceedings, noting that her husband had filed for annulment well beyond the permissible time after reaching the age of majority. In her plea, she stated: "The respondent, having attained majority on Aug 7, 2010, filed the annulment petition on July 5, 2013, well beyond the limitation period prescribed under PCM Act. The HC failed to appreciate the distinction between the age of legal capacity to marry and the age of legal capacity to institute legal proceedings."
The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, has issued a notice to the husband and will now examine the legal implications of the case. This ruling could have major consequences on the interpretation of the PCMA, especially in cases where the age of majority for males is in conflict with the legal age for marriage, further sparking debate on how child marriage laws should protect minors under current societal frameworks.
Picture Source :
