The overriding effect of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 on the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in declaring the marriage of a minor as voidable.

JASWANT SINGH, J.

1. Petitioner (Rahul) has filed present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of merit list dated 17.12.2015 (Annexure P-5), prepared for the post of Legal Assistant, Municipal Corporation in the Department of Local Government Punjab.

2. The brief facts emerging from record of the case and arguments of the Counsel of both the parties are that the respondent-Department of Local Government of Punjab (Recruitment Cell) vide advertisement dated 01.07.2015 and online invited applications for Legal Assistant in the Office of Municipal Corporation. The petitioner with Roll No. 1520400264 appeared in the examination which was held on 15.11.2015. There were 4 different sets of paper bearing Code A, B, C and D. The respondent uploaded question paper and answer key the official website. As per petitioner, the correct answer of Question no. 62 should be Option (A), whereas as per answer key loaded on the website, answer is Option (B).

3. The petitioner secured 68.75 marks whereas candidate declared at Serial No. 1 secured 69.25 marks and if contention of the petitioner is accepted that correct answer of Question No. 62 is Option (B), the merit list would change. The Question No. 62 of paper with Code-A reads as under:-

“Q. No. 62-- What is the status of minor marriage under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

Ans. (A) Valid Under (B) Voidable (C) Void (D) Perfect ”

4. Notice of Motion was issued on 14.02.2018 and Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab accepted notice on behalf of the respondent and prayed time to verify the facts. Today in Court Mr. Manoj Bajaj, produced a letter dated 20.02.2018 issued by Chief Coordinator, University Institute of Applied Management Sciences, South Campus, P.U, Chandigarh. The comments of the paper setter/subject expert are enclosed with said letter and it is addressed to Chairman. Selection Committee (Director of Local Government Punjab), Recruitment Cell, Chandigarh. The opinion of paper setter/subject expert reads as under:-

“In reference to the query on validity of minor marriage, the following observations are important to consider:-

1. The provisions of HMA, 1955 and the decisions of various Hon’ble High Courts on minor marriage were considerable before the enactment of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. This law has been enacted to curb the loopholes of personal laws and to curb the menace of child marriage in India.

2. The status of minor marriages is voidable which is explicitly mentioned in section-3(1) of PCM Act 2006. The same has been reinstated by the Hon’ble High Courts in case of Lajja Devi vs NCT of Delhi, 2012 delhi high court. The hon’ble Court has beautifully explained the reasons of declaring minor marriage as voidable after PCM Act in para 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 by giving reference of all earlier held decisions of different High Courts on the matter. And consequently held in para 21 that section- 3 of PCM, Act would have an overriding effect on section 5(iii) of HMA, 1955.

3. In this reference of case of Tehra Begum vs State of Delhi AIR 2012(4) CCC 324(kerla) DB and case of T. Siva Kumar vs Inspector of police AIR 2012 Mad.62 (FB) are also very important to take into account. Because these cases have not only criticized the opinion of retaining the status of minor marriages as valid but also emphasized on declaring the minor marriages as voidable as per section- 3(1) of PCM, Act 2006.

4. Hence, despite the fact that the personal laws have contrary opinion, the status of minor marriages is voidable. ”

5. Having scrutinized record of the case and opinion of paper setter/subject expert, this Court is of the opinion that present writ petition is bereft of merit and deserves to be dismissed. As per the petitioner, marriage of minor under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is valid whereas, as per subject expert, marriage is voidable. The contention of the petitioner is based upon only Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 whereas su