Answer

The difference in legal marriage age for men (21 years) and women (18 years) in India reflects gendered assumptions about financial responsibility and maturity. This disparity raises concerns about equality, autonomy, and legal standing in marriage laws. Recent cases, such as Sanjay Chaudhary v. Guddan (2024), highlights the need to examine its impact on fundamental rights and propose policy reforms.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

Unequal Legal Standing in Marriage Laws

• Gender-Based Discrimination: The legal marriage age difference (18 for women, 21 for men) creates a discriminatory framework where women are treated as less capable of making marital decisions.
  For example: PCMA, 2006 considers girls married before 18 as child brides, whereas boys under 21 are considered child grooms, reinforcing patriarchal stereotypes of women as dependents.
• Unequal Access to Legal Remedies: Women have only until 20 years of age to annul a child marriage, while men can approach the courts until 23, creating legal asymmetry in marital rights.
  For example: In Sanjay Chaudhary v. Guddan (2024), the Allahabad High Court questioned why men should have three additional years to annul marriage while women do not.
• Contradiction in Laws: The Majority Act, 1875 considers both men and women legal adults at 18, yet the marriage laws impose a different adulthood standard based on gender.
  For example: A woman can vote, enter contracts, or own property at 18, but cannot marry a man of her choice if he is also 18.
• Impact on Women’s Autonomy: The higher marriage age for men assumes they must be financially stable, but for women, it enforces early marriage and domestic roles, reducing their independence.
  For example: Many families push women into early marriage at 18, fearing that delaying marriage beyond 20 would make annulment harder if needed.
• Inconsistency in Protection from Child Marriage: If both men and women attain adulthood at 18, a higher marriage age for men indirectly legitimizes marriages between 18-year-old women and older men, reinforcing power imbalances.
  For example: The Madras High Court in T. Sivakumar v. The Inspector of Police (2011) noted that child marriage laws should not unfairly disadvantage men who marry before 21.

Violation of Fundamental Rights in the Constitution

• Violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality): Different legal marriage ages for men and women create an unjustifiable classification, violating gender equality under Article 14.
  For example: The Allahabad High Court observed that the PCMA’s differentiation is based on patriarchal norms, not a reasonable classification needed under Article 14.
• Violation of Article 15 (Non-Discrimination on Gender): Laws favoring men in annulment timelines and marriage age constitute state-sanctioned gender discrimination, violating Article 15(1).
  For example: The Supreme Court in Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017) held that gender-based differences in legal protections can harm women’s rights.
• Violation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty): Forcing women into earlier marriages due to legal constraints on annulment affects personal liberty, violating Article 21.
  For example: The PCMA’s annulment deadline before 20 for women forces them to stay in unwanted marriages if they miss the deadline, restricting their autonomy.
• Violation of Right to Privacy (Puttaswamy Judgment, 2017): The Supreme Court recognized marriage as a personal decision, and state interference in setting different ages for men and women violates privacy rights.
  For example: In Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018), the Court emphasized that marriage is a personal choice and cannot be dictated by state-imposed age gaps.
• Violation of Right to Dignity and Decisional Autonomy: Gendered marriage laws assume women mature earlier than men, denying them equal decisional autonomy and violating their dignity under Article 21.
  For example: A 2024 study by Enfold Proactive Health Trust found that 49.4% of child marriages were self-initiated, yet laws often criminalize such choices instead of protecting autonomy.

Policy Measures to Address This Disparity

• Uniform Marriage Age for All Genders: Bringing parity in marriageable age would remove gender-based discrimination and align laws with the Majority Act, 1875.
  For example: The Jaya Jaitly Task Force recommended raising the minimum marriage age for women to 21, emphasizing education, skill development, and employment as better solutions to delay marriage.
• Equal Time Limit for Annulment: Both men and women should have the same timeframe(age -limit) to annul a child marriage, ensuring fair access to legal remedies.
• Gender-Neutral Marriage Laws: Amend PCMA, 2006 to ensure that both men and women are treated equally in child marriage annulment and penalties, removing unnecessary distinctions.
  For example: Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017) showed how gendered marriage laws often fail to protect women’s rights adequately.
• Focus on Awareness: Instead of increasing the marriage age, policies should ensure better education, healthcare, and financial independence for young women.
  For example: The Jaya Jaitely Task Force proposed improving education and employment opportunities for women to delay marriage naturally, rather than imposing legal restrictions.
• Judicial Review and Law Reform: The Supreme Court should clarify that gendered marriage laws violate the Constitution, and Parliament must reform discriminatory provisions in PCMA, 2006.
  For example: The Justice Verma Committee (2013) recommended that marriage laws should ensure equal rights, rather than reinforcing traditional gender roles.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books From PW Store

Addressing the legal marriage age disparity requires amending laws to establish gender equality, ensuring that both men and women have equal rights in marriage. Policy reforms should focus on uniform legal age for marriage, ensuring protection against child marriage and promoting empowerment through education and awareness programs.

DOWNLOAD PDF