Marriage where one party below marriageable age is voidable, not void; courts must protect couple's life and liberty under Article 21 irrespective of marital validity.

JUDGMENT :

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

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

2. 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.

3. Pursuant to earlier order dated 17.12.2025, learned Standing Counsel has produced instructions which are taken on record and he stated, on the basis of instructions, that marriage of the petitioners was solemnized in Arya Samaj, Bareilly. It is also stated that one F.I.R. as Case Crime No. 596 of 2025, under Sections 87 , 115(2), 351, 352, 351(2) of B.N.S., P.S. Qila, District Bareilly, was registered against the petitioner no. 2, however, after investigation Final Report No. 103 of 2025, was submitted by the Investigating Officer on 18.12.2025 since the victim/petitioner no. 1, was a major girl and she did not support the prosecution story when her statements under Section 180 of B.N.S.S. and 183 of B.N.S, were recorded. All the documents of the petitioners have been verified and no forged documents were appended by the petitioners.

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 21 years, as her date of birth, as per Aadhar Card and PAN Card is 01.01.2005, 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 20 years, and as per his Aadhar Card and PAN Card, his date of birth is 06.08.2005, 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 29.11.2025 at Aray Samaj, Bareilly, as the father of petitioner no. 1 did not accord his consent. A copy of the marriage certificate dated 29.11.2025 has been appended as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition.

7. The learned Standing Counsel vehemently argued that the marriage claimed by the petitioners is void. In support of his submission, he placed 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