“A Child Marriage” Under PCMA: Allahabad High Court Declares 2004 Marriage Between Minors As ‘Void’
The Allahabad High Court has declared the marriage solemnised between minors in the year 2004 as void.
The Court was deciding an Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Family Court by which declaration sought by the husband that his marriage with his wife in 2004 was void, was declined.
A Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh observed, “No other fact is required to be established or gone into before declaring the transaction of “child marriage”, void. First, material fact, that on the date of their marriage both parties to the marriage were “child” within the meaning of that term defined under Section 2(a) of the PCMA, is admitted. Therefore, their marriage was a “child marriage” as defined under Section 2(b) of PCMA.”
The Bench also ordered the husband to pay an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs to his wife within one month.
Advocates Anil Mehrotra, Srijan Mehrotra, and Ashwani Kumar Patel appeared on behalf of the Appellant/husband while Advocate Gaurav Tripathi appeared on behalf of the Respondent/wife.
In this case, the Appellant/husband was born in 1992 whereas the Respondent/wife was born in 1995. In 2004, the Appellant was about 12 years of age and the Respondent was about 9 years of age when their marriage was solemnised. In 2013, claiming benefit of Section 3 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (PCMA), the Appellant filed a Suit. He claimed that his Suit was within the limitation prescribed under Section 3(3) of PCMA. Other fact grounds were also pleaded to allege that the Respondent never cohabited, etc.
In the objections filed by the Respondent to that Suit, amongst others, it was objected that the Appellant had attained the age of majority i.e., 18 years in the year 2010 and therefore, the Suit presented after expiry of two years therefrom was barred by limitation prescribed under PCMA. The Family Court found that the marriage solemnised between the parties was a ‘child marriage’ under PCMA, yet, it sustained the objections raised and dismissed the Suit. Being aggrieved, he was before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “… we are unable to sustain the reasoning offered by the learned Court below insofar as it has referred to and related to the conduct of the appellant of filing a divorce suit under section 13 HMA, prior to the institution of the suit under Section 3 of PCMA. No explicit or implicit act of election was proven performed by the appellant, after “attaining majority” as may be read to his having confirmed/legalised the “child marriage” between the parties. Having instituted the later suit within limitation, he had not waived the option to void that transaction.”
The Court added that it is a fact that the Suit was filed without specific reference to Section 3(3) of PCMA, yet, upon amendment made and allowed, it must be acknowledged that the amendment relates back to the date of institution of the Suit.
“Thus, mere incorrect section description may have no bearing on the scope of the statutory suit proceedings. Substantive rights claimed by the appellant must be tested on the strength of pre-existing statutory law in light of the amended pleadings. The suit was instituted before a competent court. Therefore, the learned court below has erred in dismissing the suit instituted by the appellant”, it further noted.
The Court observed that the Appellant had limitation available up to 23 years of age, to institute that Suit and on the date of institution of the Suit by the Appellant, he was less than 23 years of age, therefore, the Suit was instituted within limitation, it having been instituted before expiry of 2 years from the date the Appellant ceased to be a “child” i.e., attained 21 years of age.
“… it is not disputed that the suit had been filed by a party to the transaction of “child marriage”. It is wholly maintainable. As to the competence and capacity of the appellant to institute the suit proceeding, there is no doubt. The appellant was more than 18 years of age. He alone could have filed that suit in his individual capacity”, it also said.
The Court added that in any case, it was not proven by the Respondent that the Appellant had ever elected to confirm his “child marriage” after “attaining majority” or that he ever waived his right to void that transaction and hence, the Family Court ought to have granted the relief prayed.
“What last survives for our consideration is, provision for maintenance and residence of the respondent. In that, counsel for the respondent has (in the alternative), pressed for INR 50,00,000/- towards permanent alimony and a residential house for the residence of the respondent. On his part, the appellant has offered to pay permanent alimony @ INR 15,00,000/-, at most. Insofar as the respondent has continued to reside with her parents the prayer for residential accommodation made by the respondent is declined. As to permanent alimony, we peg the amount at INR 25,00,000/-”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the impugned Order, declared the marriage as void, and directed the Appellant to pay Rs. 25 lakhs within one month.
Cause Title- Sanjay Chudhary v. Guddan @ Usha (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:173333-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Anil Kumar Mehrotra, Srijan Mehrotra, and Ashwani Kumar Patel.
Respondent: Advocates Gaurav Tripathi, Anurag Vajpeyi, and Bindu Kumari.
