SMT EKATA YADAV AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                         WRIT - C No. - 35745 of 2026

Smt Ekata Yadav And Another
                                                               .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                     :   Arun Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)                     :   C.S.C.

Court No. - 75
                 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents and perused the material on record.

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. 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 private respondents, who happens to be father of the
petitioner no.1. Therefore, they seek protection from this Court to secure
their life and liberty.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 is
aged about 22 years, as her date of birth recorded in the High School
marksheet 01.01.2004 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 per his High School marksheet,
his date of birth is 21.07.2007, copy of which has been appended as
Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition.

5. 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 but the father
                                                          WRIC No. 35745 of 2026
                                 2


of the petitioner no. 1 did not accord his consent. A copy of the marriage
invitation card and photographs has been appended as Annexure No.1 to
the writ petition Learned counsel further argued that the petitioners were
and enjoying their married life and that the petitioner no.1 has conceived.
Further, it is stated that private respondent and other family members
have got annoyed and there is serious danger to their lives as they are
being threatened and harassed.

6. 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.

7. 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 petition for annulling a child
          marriage by a decree of nullity may be filed in the
          district court only by a contracting party to the
          marriage who was a child at the time of the marriage.
          (2) If at the time of filing a petition, the petitioner is a
          minor, the petition may be filed through his or her
          guardian or next friend alongwith the Child Marriage
          Prohibition Officer.

          (3) The petition under this section may be filed at any
          time but before the child filing the petition completes
          two years of attaining majority.
          (4) While granting a decree of nullity under this
                                                        WRIC No. 35745 of 2026
                               3

          section, the district court shall make an order
          directing both the parties to the marriage and their
          parents of their guardians to return to the other
          party, his or her parents or guardian, as the case may
          be, the money, valuables, ornaments and other gifts
          received on the occasion of the marriage by them
          from the other side, or an amount equal to the value
          of such valuables, ornaments, other gifts and money:
          Provided that no order under this section shall be
          passed unless the concerned parties have been given
          notices to appear before the district court and show
          cause why such order should not be passed.
     12. Marriage of a minor child to be void in certain
     circumstances.-Where a child, being a minor
          (a) is taken or enticed out of the keeping of the lawful
          guardian; or
          (b) by force compelled, or by any deceitful means
          induced to go from any place; or
          (c) is sold for the purpose of marriage; and made to
          go through a form of marriage or if the minor is
          marriage after which the minor is sold or trafficked
          or used for immoral purposes, such marriage shall be
          null and void."

8. Thus, it is seen that as per Section 3, the marriage is voidable at the
instance of the minor, provided that such petition for declaring the
marriage to be voidable if filed by the child, upto 2 years of having
attained majority.

That situation, obviously, has not come about as yet.

9. Coming next to Section 12 of the said Act, which declares marriage of
a minor child to be void in certain circumstances, what is argued by
learned Standing Counsel is with regard to clause (a) of the said Section,
which stipulates that a marriage would be void when a child/minor, is
taken or enticed out of the keeping of the lawful guardian.

10. Before adverting to the arguments so raised by the learned Standing
Counsel, it is relevant to mention here that this Court in case of Sonu
Paswan Vs. State of U.P., 2013 (83) ACC (1), after considering the
provisions of the Act, 1955 and the Act, 2006 categorically opined that
marriage of a minor below the marriageable age would not be void but
voidable at the option of the child, who has not attained the marriageable
age at the time of marriage. Also, in that case the Court considered the
                                                     WRIC No. 35745 of 2026
                              4


provisions of Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 and concluded that there is
no bar if a minor acts as a guardian of his own wife. Thus the Court held
as under:-

    "21. Even, if it is considered that Rekha Devi is a minor, her
    marriage is not void ab initio under the provisions of Hindu
    Marriage Act.
    22. The marriage would be vioidable under the Act of 2006,
    only if Rekha Devi files a petition for that purpose. In the case
    in hand, however, Rekha Devi states that she got married to
    Sonu Paswan, i.e. the petitioner, and wants to live with him in
    her matrimonial home. The marriage is not void under Section
    12 of the Act of 2006 in so much as the conditions stipulated in
    the said provision are not existence in this case.
    23. Under Section 21 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, a
    minor can act as a guardian of his own wife or child. Under the
    Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Clause 'C' of
    Section 6, in the case of married girl, the husband would be the
    guardian"

11. A full Bench of the Delhi High Court, presided by A K Sikri, ACJ, as
his lordship then was, in Court in Its Own Motion (Lajja Devi) Vs. State
2014(1) JIC 198 (Del)(FB) after discussing the entire gamut of legislation
on the subject, concluded thus:-

    "Be as it may, having regard to the legal statutory position that
    stands as of now leaves as to answer first part of question No.1
    by concluding that the marriage contracted with a female of
    less than 18 years or a male of less than 21 years would not be
    a void marriage but voidable one, which would become valid if
    no steps are taken by such "child" within the meaning of Section
    2(a) of the PCM Act, 2002 under Section 3 of the said Act
    seeking declaration of this marriage as void."

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in similar circumstances, where one of the
party/ boy had not attained marriageable age i.e. 21 years, granted
protection and it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Nandakumar and another Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in
2018 (16) SCC 602 that at the most the marriage under the circumstances
would be voidable marriage. The relevant paragraph Nos. 8, 9 and 10 of
Nandakumar (supra) are reproduced hereunder:-

    "[8] Learned counsel for the appellants is right in his
    submission. Even the counsel for the State did not dispute the
    aforesaid position in law and, in fact, supported this submission
    of the learned counsel for the appellants. Insofar as marriage of
    appellant No. 1 (who was less than 21 years of age on the date
                                                 WRIC No. 35745 of 2026
                           5

of marriage and was not of marriageable age) with Thushara is
concerned, it cannot be said that merely because appellant No.
1 was less than 21 years of age, marriage between the parties is
null and void. Appellant No. 1 as well as Thushara are Hindus.
Such a marriage is not a void marriage under the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, and as per the provisions of section 12,
which can be attracted in such a case, at the most, the marriage
would be a voidable marriage.
[9] Section 5 and Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act make
this position clear which are reproduced below:
     "5. Conditions for a Hindu marriage.-A Marriage
     may be solemnised between any two Hindus, if the
     following conditions are fulfilled, namely -
     xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
     (iii) the bridegroom has completed the age of twenty
     one years and the bride, the age of eighteen years at
     the time of the marriage;"
     12. Voidable marriages.-
     (1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after
     the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and
     may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the
     following grounds, namely:-
     1(a) that the marriage has not been consummated
     owing to the impotence of the respondent: or
     (b) that the marriage is in contravention of the
     condition specified in clause (ii) of section 5; or
     (c) that the consent of the petitioner, or where the
     consent of the guardian in marriage of the petitioner
     was required under section 5 as it stood immediately
     before the commencement of the Child Marriage
     Restraint (Amendment) Act, the 1978 (2 of 1978), the
     consent of such guardian was obtained by force or by
     fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to any
     material fact or circumstance concerning the
     respondent; or
     (d) that the respondent was at the time of the
     marriage pregnant by some person other than the
     petitioner."
[10] We need not go into this aspect in detail. For our
purposes, it is sufficient to note that both appellant No. 1 and
Thushara are major. Even if they were not competent to enter
into wedlock (which position itself is disputed), they have right
to live together even outside wedlock. It would not be out of
place to mention that "live-in relationship" is now recognized
by the Legislature itself which has found its place under the
provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
                                                       WRIC No. 35745 of 2026
                               6

     Act, 2005."

13. Admittedly, the girl/ petitioner no.1 is a major and competent to act on
her own and be held responsible for her act, thus, her father cannot, at this
stage, be heard to say that his daughter who is otherwise major, has
enticed a minor boy and the marriage of his daughter, therefore, void. The
girl being a major and there being no complaint by the guardian of the
boy, the objections raised by the learned Standing Counsel appears to be
both misconceived and in any case premature. This Court at this stage is
only examining the issue of security of the life of the petitioners.

14. On the other hand, under Section 3 of the Act, 2006 and Section 5/12
of the Act, 1955 such a marriage may be voidable. However, from a plain
reading of that provisions, it is clear that the marriage would be voidable
only by a contracting party to the marriage, who was a child in view of
the aforesaid Acts. Also, such issues cannot be examined in the present
proceedings. Thus, the present writ petition is wholly maintainable.

15. As already noted, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
validity of the marriage at this stage, I am of the view that what needs to
be addressed is the apprehension of the petitioners based on threat to their
life and liberty for the reasons/circumstances as narrated in the petition.

16. Controversy that needs adjudication now is whether an appropriate
writ/direction or order is warranted to allay the apprehensions of the
petitioners for granting protection to them for enforcement of their
fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

17. I am conscious of the fact that even though the girl is major, but
neither the boy is major nor of marriageable age. Their marriage,
therefore, even if assumed to have taken place according to Hindu Rites
and Rituals is in violation of Section 5 (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Section 5, envisages statutory pre-requisites for the consenting parties to
solemnize marriage between them. Sub Section (iii) thereof stipulates the
minimum ages of a bridegroom and a bride. Section 5 reads as under:-

     "Conditions for a Hindu marriage. A marriage may be
     solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions
     are fulfilled, namely:
     (i) neither party has a spouse living at the time of the
     marriage;[(ii) at the time of the marriage, neither party
                                                       WRIC No. 35745 of 2026
                               7

          (a) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in
          consequence of unsoundness of mind; or
          (b) though capable of giving a valid consent, has
          been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or
          to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the
          procreation of children; or
          (c) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity
          [***];]
     (iii) the bridegroom has completed the age of [twenty-one
     years] and the bride, the age of [eighteen years] at the time of
     the marriage;
     (iv) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited
     relationship unless the custom or usage governing each of them
     permits of a marriage between the two;
     (v) the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom
     or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between
     the two;"

18. A perusal of Section 5, ibid leaves no manner of doubt that one of the
essential conditions of Hindu Marriage Act is that the bridegroom must be
above 21 years and the bride above 18 years. However, at the same time,
Section 11 of the Act, 1955, which declares certain marriages, which are
in contravention of Section 5 (supra), to be void, but precludes a marriage
solemnized in contravention of Sub Section (iii) of Section 5, ibid from
the purview of being regarded as void or invalid.

19. I find support to my above sentiments from a Division Bench
judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in case titled as Jitender Kumar
Sharma Vs. State and Another reported in 2001 (7) AD (Delhi) 785. The
relevant whereof is extracted hereinbelow:-

     "It is true that one of the conditions of a hindu marriage is that
     the bride should have completed 18 years age and the
     bridegroom, 21 years. But, does this mean that a marriage
     where this twin condition as to ages is not satisfied is, ipso
     facto, invalid or void? An examination of Section 11 of the
     HMA would seem to suggest otherwise. The said provision is as
     under:-
     11. Void marriages- Any marriage solemnized after the
     commencement of this Act shall be null and void and may, on a
     petition presented by either party thereto against the other
     party, be so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes any
     one of the conditions specified in clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of
     Section 5.
                                                   WRIC No. 35745 of 2026
                             8

Though five conditions have been stipulated in Section 5, only
the contravention of three of them, namely, clauses (i) (iv) and
(v) would render the marriage to be null and void. Clause (iii)
of section 5, which is the condition with regard to the minimum
ages of the bride and bridegroom, is conspicuous by its
absence. As a result, a hindu marriage solemnized in
contravention of clause (iii) of section 5 of the HMA cannot be
regarded as a void or invalid marriage. We are not oblivious of
section 18 of the HMA which prescribes punishment for
contravention of certain conditions for a hindu marriage. It
reads as under:-
18. Punishment for contravention of certain other conditions for
Hindu marriage.- Every person who procures a marriage of
himself or herself to be solemnized under this Act in
contravention of the conditions specified in clauses (iii), (iv)
and (v) of Section 5 shall be punishable-
a) in the case of contravention of the condition specified in
clause (iii) of Section 5, with rigorous imprisonment which may
extend to two years or with fine which may extend to one lakh
rupees, or with both;
b) in the case of a contravention of the condition specified in
clause (iv) or clause (v) of Section 5, with simple imprisonment
which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend
to one thousand rupees, or with both.
c) (***)
But, the fact that punishment has been provided for
contravention of the condition specified in section 5 (iii) of the
HMA does not mean that the marriage itself is void or invalid.
If the legislature had intended that such a marriage would be
void or invalid, it could have easily included clause (iii) of
section 5 in Section 11 itself. Only clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of
section 5 are specifically mentioned in section 11. The only
conclusion is that the legislature consciously left out marriages
in contravention of the age stipulation in clause (iii) of section 5
from the category of void or invalid marriages.
xxx----xxx------xxx----xxx
Before we proceed further, under Hindu law there are
essentially two kinds of marriages-void marriages or valid
marriages. The latter category has a sub-category of voidable
marriages. A marriage in contravention of clause (iii) of section
5, as we have seen above, does not fall in the category of void
marriages specified in section 11 of the HMA nor does it fall in
the category of voidable marriages specified in section 12.
Consequently, by the process of elimination, it would be a valid
marriage. Of course, the marriage may be dissolved through a
decree of divorce, but, that would have to be on the grounds
specified in section 13 of the HMA. Interestingly, section 13 (2)
(iv) enables a 'wife' to petition for dissolution of her marriage
on the ground:-
                                                       WRIC No. 35745 of 2026
                               9

     (iv) that her marriage (whether consummated or not) was
     solemnized before she attained the age of fifteen years and she
     has repudiated the marriage after attaining that age but before
     attaining the age of eighteen years.
     What does this show? It shows that even a marriage of a minor
     girl below the age of fifteen is regarded as valid and can only
     be dissolved on her petition, provided she repudiates the
     marriage between the time she is 15 years old and 18 years
     old."

20. Reverting to the present case, in light of the aforesaid background and
the judgment rendered by Delhi High Court, it appears from the
documents appended herein that the petitioners have not solemnized a
valid marriage as per Sub Section (iii) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage
Act and may be required to satisfy the validity of their marriage before an
appropriate Forum in the event of same being put to challenge.

21. The issue in hand, however, is not marriage of the petitioners, but the
deprivation of fundamental right of seeking protection of life and liberty. I
have no hesitation to hold that Constitutional Fundamental Right under
Article 21 of Constitution of India stands on a much higher pedestal.
Being sacrosanct under the Constitutional Scheme it must be protected,
regardless of the solemnization of an invalid or void marriage or even the
absence of any marriage between the parties.

22. It is the bounden duty of the State as per the Constitutional obligations
casted upon it to protect the life and liberty of every citizen. Right to
human life is to be treated on much higher pedestal, regardless of a citizen
being minor or a major. The mere fact that the petitioner No.2 is not of
marriageable age in the present case would not deprive him of his
fundamental right as envisaged in Constitution of India, being citizen of
India.

23. In Lata Singh vs. State of UP 2006 Cr.L.J. 3309, while dealing with a
case of harassment by the parents of the boy and girl, who had entered
into inter-caste marriage, Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued directions to
the Administration/Police authorities throughout the country in the
following terms:-

     "This is a free and democratic country, and once a person
     becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If
     the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste
     or inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that
                                                         WRIC No. 35745 of 2026
                                10

     they can cut off social relations with the son or the daughter,
     but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of
     violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such
     inter-caste or inter- religious marriage. We, therefore, direct
     that the administration/police authorities throughout the
     country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major
     undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman
     or man who is a major, the couple are not harassed by any one
     nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and any one who
     gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence
     either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting
     criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and
     further stern action is taken against such persons as provided
     by law."

24. In Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396 Hon'ble
Supreme Court held in paragraph 28 and 29 as under:-

     "28. ..... Often young couples who fall in love have to seek
     shelter in the police lines or protection homes, to avoid the
     wrath of kangaroo courts. We have held in Lata Singh case that
     there is nothing "honourable" in "honour" killings, and they are
     nothing but barbaric and brutal murders by bigoted persons
     with feudal minds. In our opinion honour killings, for whatever
     reason, come within the category of the rarest of rare cases
     deserving death punishment. It is time to stamp out these
     barbaric, feudal practices which are a slur on our nation. This
     is necessary as a deterrent for such outrageous, uncivilised
     behavior. All persons who are planning to perpetrate "honour"
     killings should know that the gallows await them.
     29. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Registrars
     General/ Registrars of all the High Courts who shall circulate
     the same to all the Judges of the Courts. The Registrars
     General/ Registrars of the High Courts will also circulate
     copies of the same to all the Sessions Judges/ Additional
     Sessions Judges in the States/Union Territories. Copies of the
     judgment shall also be sent to all the Chief Secretaries/ Home
     Secretaries/ Directors General of Police of all States/ Union
     Territories in the country. The Home Secretaries and Directors
     General of Police will circulate the same to all SSPs/SPs in the
     States/Union Territories for information."

25. It is contended by learned Standing Counsel that the above
observations and directions issued by the Supreme Court are being
enforced in the State of UP and that no further direction is required to be
issued by this Court at this stage as it is a mere apprehension of the
petitioners that the private respondents may commit some act of violence
and or harass the petitioners.

26. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without
                                                                                             WRIC No. 35745 of 2026
                                                                    11


                                    prejudice to the merits of the case, the writ petition is finally disposed off
                                    with the direction that the petitioners are at liberty to live together being a
                                    married couple and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their
                                    peaceful living. In case, any disturbance is caused in the peaceful living of
                                    the petitioners, the petitioners shall approach the Senior Superintendent of
                                    Police or Superintendent of Police concerned with a copy of this order,
                                    who will examine the matter and shall provide immediate protection to
                                    the petitioners. The Police authority shall also ensure that an innocent
                                    person should not be harassed or humiliated if he/she has not caused any
                                    hindrance in peaceful married life of the petitioners.

                                    27. It is also directed to the petitioners that the marriage dated 20.08.2026
                                    be registered within two months from today, in accordance with the
                                    provisions of U.P. Marriage Registration Rules, 2017 and if the
                                    petitioners fail to get the marriage registered within stipulated time the
                                    protection granted herein would cease to operate.

                                    28. However, it is made clear that this court has not adjudicated the
                                    validity of the marriage and/or genuineness of their marriage certificate
                                    claimed by the petitioners or the correct age of the petitioners. It is further
                                    clarified, this order has not been passed to protect the petitioners against
                                    any action or proceedings instituted in accordance with law.

                                    29. Since the petition is being disposed of in limine, any person aggrieved
                                    by it is at liberty to apply for its recall, if the order has been obtained by
                                    suppression or concealment of facts or on false averments.

                                    30. However, this order would not come in way of investigation, if any,
                                    pending before the police authorities.

                                    31. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly with above observations.




                                                                                   (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
                                    September 9, 2026
                                    S.Ali/Sahani




Digitally signed by :-
SHAUKAT ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad