Supreme Court to Decide: Should the Age for Annulment Under PCMA Be 18 or 21 While Addressing Gender Inequality?

The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice in a petition addressing a pivotal question: Should the age of majority for males, in calculating the limitation period to file for marriage annulment under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA), be 18 years or 21 years?

Key Details of the Case

• The bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah considered the plea filed by the petitioner-wife challenging an Allahabad High Court judgment that declared her marriage void.
• The petition arose after the High Court held that the husband’s plea for annulment—filed when he was 23 years old—was within the limitation period under Section 3(3) of the PCMA.
• The petitioner-wife argued that the High Court’s interpretation extended the limitation period beyond the legislative intent, conflicting with constitutional principles and the protective ethos of the PCMA.

Background of the Case

• The couple married when the husband was 12 years old (born 1992) and the wife was 9 years old (born 1995).
• In 2013, the husband filed a suit under Section 12(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) seeking annulment. He later amended the suit to invoke Section 3 of the PCMA, which was permitted.
• The Family Court dismissed the suit, citing prior cohabitation, failure to meet conditions under Section 12(2) of the HMA, and limitation issues.
• However, the Allahabad High Court overturned this ruling in October 2024, declaring the marriage void and awarding ₹25 lakh as permanent alimony to the wife. The court observed that the annulment petition was filed within the limitation period, considering the husband’s majority age as 21.

Key Arguments by the Petitioner-Wife

• Limitation Period Misapplied:
  • The wife argued that under Section 3(3) of PCMA, the husband had only two years after attaining majority at 18 years to file for annulment. Since he filed the petition in 2013, three years after reaching 18, it was barred by limitation.
• Legislative Intent of PCMA:
  • The petitioner emphasized that the PCMA aims to annul child marriages promptly, focusing on protecting vulnerable parties, particularly females. The High Court’s interpretation undermined this legislative purpose.
• Violation of Equality under Article 14:
  • Allowing males until 23 years and females only until 20 years to seek annulment creates a gender disparity, violating the principles of equality and fairness enshrined in the Constitution of India.
• Distinction Between Majority and Marriage Capacity:
  • The wife highlighted that while the legal age for marriage for males is 21, they attain legal capacity to file a suit at 18, as per Section 2(f) of the PCMA and Section 3(1) of the Majority Act, 1875.
• High Court’s Error:
  • The petitioner contended that relating the husband’s amended plea to the original suit’s filing date was incorrect and not in line with procedural law.

Observations of the High Court

• The High Court ruled that the limitation period began when the husband reached 21, allowing him to file the annulment petition by age 23.
• The judgment acknowledged the annulment but directed permanent alimony of ₹25 lakh for the wife.

Supreme Court’s Observations

• The Supreme Court questioned the applicability of the age of majority in determining the limitation period under the PCMA.
• The bench highlighted the need to balance the protective objectives of the PCMA with principles of equality and fairness.

Legal Implications

• The decision could set a precedent on interpreting the limitation period for annulment of child marriages, especially concerning gender-based disparity in ages of majority and marriage capacity.
• It highlights the tension between legislative intent and judicial interpretation, particularly in balancing equality and protecting vulnerable individuals.

Case Title: GUDDAN @USHA Versus SANJAY CHUDHARY, SLP(C) No. 771/2025