INTRODUCTION:  The long title of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 indicates a clear legislative intent to prohibit and prevent child marriages. However, the Act does not render such marriages void ab initio but merely voidable at the option of the minor (contracting parties), thereby creating an inherent inconsistency within the statutory framework. If the objective is prohibition, the continued legal recognition of such unions appears conceptually contradictory. In practice, the burden placed upon minors to repudiate these marriages, often within restrictive social conditions, significantly limits the effectiveness of this remedy. This blog examines how such internal contradiction operates as a structural loophole, undermining the protective purpose of the legislation.

The legal framework governing child marriages in India is primarily contained in the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, which seeks to prohibit and penalise such unions.[1] The Act defines a child as a male below twenty-one years and a female below eighteen years, thereby setting the minimum age of marriage.

Section 3 provides that a child marriage is voidable at the option of the contracting party who was a minor at the time of marriage, enabling such party to seek annulment within a limited period.[2] In contrast, section 12 declares certain marriages void ab initio only in aggravated situations involving coercion, trafficking or enticement.[3] As has been noted in Hindu law scholarship, the legal validity of a marriage may operate independently of its substantive fairness, a distinction that becomes particularly problematic in the context of child marriages.[4]

The legal position under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 embodies a striking contradiction between normative intent and operative effect. While the Act purports to prohibit child marriages, it simultaneously recognises their legal existence by treating them as voidable rather than “void under section 3”. Consequently, such marriages are not rendered null from inception but continue to subsist in law unless and until a decree of nullity is obtained, thereby allowing an expressly prohibited institution to produce binding legal consequences.

This structural inconsistency has been widely criticised in legal scholarship, which notes that the current framework creates “a series of loopholes and contradictions” within the law itself.[5] By shifting the burden of annulment onto the minor, the statute assumes a level of agency that is often absent in reality. Social norms, familial control and economic dependency operate as significant barriers, effectively ensuring that many such marriages persist unchallenged. In this sense, the law does not merely fail to prevent child marriages but, by recognising their validity until judicial intervention, indirectly facilitates their continuation, thereby undermining its own protective purpose.

JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE

Judicial engagement with child marriage in India reflects a consistent attempt to reconcile statutory limitations with the need for effective child protection. In Independent Thought v Union of India, the Supreme Court adopted a purposive interpretation by reading down the marital rape exception, holding that sexual intercourse with a minor wife would constitute rape.[6] This marked a significant step in recognising that the legal subsistence of marriage cannot override the fundamental rights and bodily autonomy of a minor.

Similarly, in Lajja Devi v State, the Delhi High Court observed that although child marriages are not void under the existing statutory framework, their recognition cannot be used to defeat protective legal provisions, particularly in cases involving minor girls.[7] The court thus emphasised a welfare-oriented approach in interpreting such marriages.

Further, in Court on its Own Motion v State, the court highlighted the continuing prevalence of child marriages and stressed the need for stricter enforcement of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.[8] However, despite these progressive interventions, courts remain constrained by the statutory classification of such marriages as voidable, thereby limiting their ability to invalidate them altogether. This underscores the inability of judicial interpretation to fully resolve a contradiction that is fundamentally legislative in nature.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

The legal framework governing child marriage in India reveals a contradiction that is both structural and conceptual. A statute that explicitly seeks to prohibit an institution would ordinarily be expected to deny it any legal recognition; yet, under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, such marriages are not void but merely voidable, thereby allowing them to subsist until set aside by a competent court.[9] This raises a fundamental question: can a law genuinely claim to prohibit an act while simultaneously preserving its legal consequences?

The voidable classification further shifts the burden of enforcement onto the minor, who is required to initiate annulment proceedings within a limited timeframe. In reality, however, such an expectation appears deeply flawed. Social stigma, familial authority and economic dependence often operate as significant barriers, effectively rendering the remedy illusory in practice. As has been observed in Hindu law scholarship, the persistence of formal validity in such circumstances risks privileging legal form over substantive justice.[10]

Moreover, socio-legal analyses have pointed out that the continued recognition of such marriages indirectly legitimises their existence within both legal and social frameworks.[11] In this light, the law appears to oscillate between condemnation and accommodation. If the legislative objective is truly to eradicate child marriage, should its validity be contingent upon challenge? Or does the present framework, by sustaining such unions until annulment, inadvertently perpetuate the very harm it seeks to prevent?

CONCLUSION

The law’s treatment of child marriage as voidable reveals a contradiction that weakens its own prohibitory intent. By allowing such unions to subsist until challenged, it shifts the burden onto vulnerable minors. A truly protective framework would demand their complete invalidation, raising the pressing question: can prohibition exist without absolute

[1] Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006.

[2] Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006, s 3.

[3] Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006, s 12.

[4] Paras Diwan, Modern Hindu Law (21st edn, Allahabad Law Agency 2016).

[5] “Swapnil Nayan, ‘Should Child Marriages be made void ab initio in India?’ (2020) Journal of Family & Adoption Law.

[6] Independent Thought v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 800.

[7] Lajja Devi v State 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1983.

[8] Court on its Own Motion v State 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2777.”

[9] Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006.

[10] Paras Diwan, Modern Hindu Law (21st edn, Allahabad Law Agency 2016).

[11] See eg socio-legal discussions on child marriage and enforcement, SCC OnLine Blog <https://www.scconline.com/blog/> accessed 1 April 2026.

BY DHWANI AMIN, 2nd year
Student of Gujarat National Law University, Silvassa Campus