Legal Age Difference for Marriage Based On Patriarchal Bias: Allahabad High Court

Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh, Donadi Ramesh made the observations while dealing with a man’s appeal against a family court's refusal to declare his marriage void.

Lucknow: The Allahabad High Court on Thursday came down harshly upon the existing legal framework about existing legal disparity in the marriage arena for men (21 years) and women (18 years). The court said that the practice reflects a “vestige of patriarchy” that remains entrenched in modern law.

A Bench of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and 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 legislative intent was to allow an extra three years for men to complete their education and gain financial independence to support the family," the bench said.

The bench observed while hearing a man’s appeal against a family court's refusal to declare his marriage null and void. The relief was sought on the ground that the marriage, which had taken place in 2004, was a child marriage as back then, he was only 12 years old and his wife nine.

The court said its decision was based on some pivotal legal issues. First, Under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA), the legal definition of a “child” for marriage purposes is any male under 21 and any female under 18. This discrepancy in age limit has raised serious questions about gender roles in our country.

Second, “The notion that men should be older at marriage reflects an outdated, patriarchal bias embedded in law, assuming that women require protection or maturity later in life," the court said.

The court also noted that once the word 'minor' was used in PCMA to refer to a person below 18 years of age a person more than 18 years of age would not be a 'minor'.

"In the absence of any other concept or legislative intent contained in PCMA, the antonym of the word “minor” i.e. “major” appears to have been used to express the opposite intent i.e. a person who is more than 18 years of age. Only then the definition of the word “minor”, may make any sense,” the court said.

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. 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,” the court observed.