Marriage with party below marriageable age voidable not void; Article 21 protection for life/liberty of majors paramount over validity disputes, mandating state safeguards against family harassment.

JUDGMENT :

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Instructions produced by learned Standing Counsel are taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Yogesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful marital life and also for a direction to provide protection.

4. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who claim to have attained the age of majority and to have solemnized their marriage of their own free will. The allegation of the petitioners is that they are being harassed by the respondent no.4, who happens to be father of the petitioner no.1. Therefore, they seek protection from this Court to secure their life and liberty.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 is aged about 20 years, as her date of birth, recorded in the Aadhaar Card is 01.01.2006, a copy of which has been appended as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. It is further submitted that petitioner no. 2 is also a major boy, aged about 19 years, and as his Aadhaar Card, his date of birth is 01.08.2007, a copy of which has been appended as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition.

6. It is further submitted that although petitioner no. 2 has attained the age of majority but he has not attained the marriageable age as prescribed under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1955"). It is submitted that the petitioners, having fallen in love and being desirous of marrying each other, solemnized their marriage on 10.11.2025 at Shiv Temple, Hathras, as the father of petitioner no. 1 did not accord his consent. A copy of the photograph of marriage dated 10.11.2025 has been appended as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition.

7. The learned Standing Counsel vehemently argues that the marriage claimed by the petitioners is void. In support of his submission, he places reliance upon the provisions of Section 12 (a) of The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 2006"). It is, thus, contended that the petitioner no.2 falls within the definition of a 'child' under the Act, 2006 and he cannot solemnize the marriage, therefore, the marriage claimed by the petitioners is null and void. In the alternative, learned Standing Counsel submits that the marriage claimed by the petitioners is voidable at the option of the petitioners. He further submits that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed at this stage.

8. Therefore, I first need to examine as to whether the marriage is void or only voidable, in terms of the Act of 2006. Sections 3 & 12 of the said Act are reproduced hereinunder:-

"3. Child marriages to be voidable at the option of contracting party being a child.-

(1) Every child marriage, whether solemnised before or after commencement of this Act, shall be voidable at the option of the contracting party who was a child at the time of marriage:

Provided that a petit