Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006: Explained
- Legal Journey
- 27 minutes ago
- 31 min read
Table of Content 💻
Introduction
The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (PCMA) is a Central legislation enacted to prohibit the solemnisation of child marriages in India.
To provide protective, preventive, and punitive measures in relation thereto.
It received Presidential assent on 10th Janua
ry 2007 and came into force on 1st November 2007.
The Act extends to the whole of India; AND
Applies to all citizens of India irrespective of religion, including Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and Parsis, making it a secular and uniform legislation.
The ONLY exception carved out is for the Renoncants of the Union Territory of Pondicherry, who chose to be governed by French civil law during colonial rule.
The PCMA is a paradigm shift from its predecessor, the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929.
Where the old law merely RESTRAINED such marriages through criminal penalties, the PCMA PROHIBITS them, renders them VOIDABLE (and VOID in aggravated circumstances).
It also establishes a dedicated enforcement apparatus through Child Marriage Prohibition Officers (CMPOs).
Legislative History
India's legal battle against child marriage spans nearly two centuries and can be traced through four distinct phases:
Age of Consent Act, 1891 -> The first legal intervention, raising the age of consent for girls to 12 years; it criminalised intercourse with a wife below 12 but did NOT regulate the minimum age of marriage.
Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 (Sarda Act) -> Enacted on the efforts of reformer Harbilas Sarda, it set MINIMUM ages at 14 for girls and 18 for boys; critically, it did NOT declare such marriages VOID or VOIDABLE, ONLY prescribing punishment.
Amendments of 1949 and 1978 -> The Sarda Act was amended twice:
The 1949 amendment raised the age for girls to 15, and
The landmark 1978 amendment raised it to 18 for girls and 21 for boys, the current age thresholds still in force.
PCMA, 2006 -> Repealing the Sarda Act entirely (Section 21).
The PCMA shifted the legislative goal from restraint to prohibition,
Added the concept of voidability (Section 3),
Added the concept of VOID marriages in specific circumstances (Sections 12 and 14), and
Created the CMPO mechanism (Section 16).
The social reform backdrop is equally important. 19th-century reformers such as Raja Rammohan Roy, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, and Jyotirao Phule campaigned vigorously against child marriage as a social evil intertwined with patriarchy, caste, and poverty.
Objectives of the Act
The PCMA has four primary legislative objectives:
Prohibit the solemnisation of child marriages;
Protect and provide relief to victims -> through maintenance, residence, custody, and annulment;
Punish those who promote, conduct, or permit child marriages -> including adult spouses, priests, parents, and organisational members;
Empower children, especially girls, to seek annulment and assert their rights.
Constitutional Basis
The PCMA is enacted under Entry 5 of the Concurrent List (List III, Seventh Schedule) of the Constitution of India, which deals with marriage and divorce.
It is grounded in the protection of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), Article 15(3) (special provisions for women and children), and Article 39(f) (directive for protecting children against exploitation).
"The Supreme Court in Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action v. Union of India (2024 INSC 790) held that child marriage directly VIOLATES Articles 21 and 21-A of the Indian Constitution by denying children their rights to self-determination, autonomy, reproductive autonomy, health, and education.
However, the Court also declined to direct that PCMA override personal laws, leaving that question to Parliament.
International Obligations
The PCMA is India's legislative response to binding and persuasive international instruments:
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 1989 -> Ratified by India in 1992; mandates protection of children from harmful practices and the right to education.
CEDAW (Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) -> Prohibits child marriage and calls for a minimum age of marriage.
SDG 5.3 -> Calls for elimination of child marriage globally by 2030; India has committed to becoming child-marriage-free by 2030.
The PCMA Amendment Bill, 2021
The Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021 was introduced in Parliament in December 2021.
It proposes raising the minimum age of marriage for women from 18 to 21 years, bringing it at par with men.
The Bill was referred to a Parliamentary Standing Committee and remains pending as of 2026.
If enacted, it would amend the definition of "child" under Section 2(a) and require consequential amendments to personal laws including the Hindu Marriage Act, Special Marriage Act, and others.
Section-by-Section Analysis
With these foundational pillars in place, we now turn to the Act's provisions.
Each Section below is followed, where applicable, by relevant judicial interpretations.
Section 1. Short title, extent and commencement
Clause (1) - This Act may be called as the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
Clause (2) - It extends to the whole of India; and
It also applies to all citizens of India residing outside India.
Provided, this Act shall NOT apply to the Renoncants of the Union Territory of Pondicherry.
"Renoncants" refer to individuals who, during French rule, chose to be governed by the French Code Napoleon (1804) instead of the prevailing Indian personal laws.
Clause (3) - It shall come into force on 1st November 2007.
Section 2. Definitions
(a) Child - A person who :-
If a male | Is less than 21 years of age |
If a female | Is less than 18 years of age |
(b) Child Marriage - Any marriage in which either of the contracting parties is a child.
- The term “either” has been used, this means that it's not necessary for both the parties to be a minor.
- Even if a single party is a child, the resultant marriage will be a Child Marriage.
(c) Contracting party - It refers to either of the parties whose marriage is or is about to be thereby solemnised.
(d) Child Marriage Prohibition Officer - As appointed under Section 16(1).
(e) District Court - Means :-
In any area | Court |
Where Family Court is established | Then such Family Court |
Where there is NO Family Court, but City Civil Court exists | Then that City Civil Court |
In any other area | The Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction; also includes any other Civil Court specified by State Government |
(f) Minor - A person who has NOT attained majority as per the Majority Act, 1875.
- Simply meaning any person (either male or female) who has NOT attained the age of 18 years.
- This is different from the definition of “child” under Section 2(a).
Section 3. Child marriages to be voidable at the option of contracting party being a child
Clause (1) - It declares that every child marriage SHALL be VOIDABLE.
- Hence, child marriage are NOT VOID AB INITIO (NOT VOID from beginning)
- They must be declared VOID by the appropriate Court.
- Child Marriage is VOIDABLE by the party who was a child at the time of marriage.
- The Proviso further clarifies that a petition for annulling (to declare it no longer legally valid) a child marriage can ONLY be filed by the party which was a child at the time of the marriage.
- This clause hence makes it clear that in case a child marriage is contracted in which one of the party was a not a child, such a person cannot even file a petition to get the marriage annulled.
Clause (2) - In case the child is still a minor when he/she wishes to file a petition, then such a petition can be filed through his/her :-
Guardian; OR
Next friend,
Along with the Child Marriage Prohibition Officer.
Clause (3) - This clause provides a limitation period for the filing of annulment petition under this Section.
- It provides that the petition can be filed at any time during minority.
- But, where the child filing the petition has attained majority, then within 2 years of his/her attaining majority.
Clause (4) - While a decree of nullity is passed under this Section, the Court SHALL order to :-
Both parties to the marriage; AND
Their parents or guardians.
- To return to the other party, parent, or guardian as the case may be
- All kinds of gifts received on the occasion of the marriage by them from the other side; OR
- If returning the gift is not possible, then an amount equal to the value of such gifts.
- Provided such an order can ONLY be passed after hearing all the concerned parties as to why such an order should not be passed.
Hardev Singh v. Harpreet Kaur (Crl. Appeal No. 1331 of 2013)
- The Court, while primarily deciding the question of liability under Section 9, also made observations regarding Section 3 in the context of a male contracting party who is himself a child.
- The Court observed that where a male contracting party is himself a child (i.e., below 18 years of age at the time of marriage), he:
CANNOT be prosecuted under Section 9; BUT
MAY seek annulment of the child marriage as a contracting party who was a child, under Section 3.
- This observation was made obiter dicta -> meaning it was NOT the primary ratio of the judgment, but rather an incidental observation while interpreting the scope of Section 9.
- However, this observation is significant for two reasons:
It affirms that Section 3 is NOT restricted to female contracting parties alone.
A male child who was married as a minor also has the right to seek annulment under it.
It reinforces the protective character of the Act: even where the Act does NOT criminally punish a male child, it does NOT leave him without a remedy, civil relief by way of annulment under Section 3 remains available to him.
Lajja Devi v. State (NCT Delhi) 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3473
- This is one of the leading decisions on the VOIDABILITY of child marriages under the PCMA and the harmonious relationships between the PCMA and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
Facts and Issue -> The case arose from a petition for annulment of a child marriage.
- The core question was whether the right to seek a decree of nullity under Section 3 PCMA was co-extensive with Section 11 and 12 of the HMA, or whether it operated as a distinct and self-contained remedy.
Holding -> The Delhi High Court, harmonising the two statutes, held:-
Section 3 PCMA makes child marriages VOIDABLE, NOT VOID, a child marriage does NOT dissolve automatically but subsists until set aside by a competent court at the instance of the minor party.
The right to annul is exclusively conferred on the party who was a child at the time of the marriage. The adult party CANNOT invoke the PCMA to resile from a marriage of his or her own making.
Where a minor fails to obtain a decree of nullity before attaining majority, and allows the limitation period in Section 3(3) to lapse without filing a petition, the marriage crystallises into a valid marriage.
The right of avoidance is permanently extinguished.
PCMA and HMA must be read harmoniously: they are complementary, and neither overrides the other in the context of voidability.
A child marriage that is VOIDABLE under the PCMA does NOT automatically become VOID under the HMA unless the conditions in Section 11 HMA (VOID marriages) are independently satisfied.
Why it matters? - > Lajja Devi is significant because it provides the clearest judicial exposition of the consequence of inaction under Section 3.
- The protective right to exit a child marriage is personal and time-bound.
- A minor who reaches majority without filing a petition can NO longer avoid the marriage.
- This does NOT reduce the PCMA’s protective scope; rather, it correctly places the choice entirely with the former child.
- She/he may ratify the marriage by inaction or disavow it by timely petition.
Section 4. Provision for maintenance and residence to female contracting party to child marriage.
Clause (1) - While granting a decree of nullity under Section 3, the Court may also :-
Make an interim; OR
Final order
- To pay maintenance to the female contracting party to the marriage until her remarriage.
- This maintenance is to be paid by :-
The male contracting party, but if he’s a minor then;
His parent or guardian.
Clause (2) - The amount of maintenance SHALL be determined by the Court.
- While having regard to the :-
Needs of the child,
The lifestyle enjoyed by her during the marriage, and
Means of income of the male party.
Clause (3) - The payment of maintenance MAY be :-
Monthly; or
Lump sum (one time payment of whole amount)
Clause (4) - Where the party making petition under Section 3 is the female contracting party,
- The Court MAY also make a suitable order as to her residence until her remarriage.
K. A. Abdul Jaleel v. T. A. Shahida (2003) 4 SCC 166
- Though decided under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, and predating the PCMA, this Supreme Court decision has been consistently applied to child-marriage related maintenance and custody proceedings for the broader principle it establishes.
Holding -> The Supreme Court held that in all family-law disputes involving the welfare of a child or a dependent spouse, the court must adopt a child-protective and welfare-oriented interpretive approach.
- The interests of the child are NOT merely the only factor among many, they constitute the paramount consideration that must structure every remedial order.
Relevance to Sections 4 and 5 -> This welfare-centred interpretive principle is directly relevant to PCMA maintenance and custody proceedings:
Under Section 4, it means that the quantum and nature of maintenance for the female contracting party must be calculated NOT merely on a formulaic basis, but with genuine attention to rehabilitating her life post-annulment.
Under Section 5, the welfare principle operates as the dominant rule, the section itself expressly enacts it.
This case provides judicial authority for giving the principle the widest possible scope when competing interests of parents are balanced against those of the child.
Note - K. A. Abdul Jaleel does NOT interpret the PCMA directly, but it represents the Supreme Court’s authoritative statement on how welfare and relief provisions in family law must be read, and it reinforces the interpretive framework that a PCMA court should bring to Sections 4 and 5.
Section 5. Custody and maintenance of children of child marriages
Clause (1) - If children are born out of a Child Marriage,
- The Court SHALL make an appropriate order for the custody of such children.
Clause (2) - While making an order under this Section,
- The welfare and best interests of the Child shall be the paramount consideration.
Clause (3) - The order for custody of a child MAY also include :-
Appropriate directions for giving the other parent access to the child but it SHALL be in such a manner as may best serve the interests of the child; and
Such other orders the court MAY deem proper in the interest of the Child.
Clause (4) - The Court MAY also make an appropriate order for providing maintenance to the child by :-
A party to the marriage (either male or female)
The Parents of the contracting parties; or
Their guardians.
Section 6. Legitimacy of children born of Child Marriages
- A Child born out of a child marriage is a legitimate child.
- Even if such a child marriage has been later annulled under Section 3, the child born or conceived out of such a marriage, before it was annulled, is a legitimate child.
Revansiddappa v. Mallikarjun (2011) 11 SCC 1
- This is the leading Supreme Court authority on the civil status and property rights of children born from VOID and VOIDABLE marriages.
Facts -> The case concerned the inheritance rights of a child born of a VOID marriage.
- The question was whether such a child could be denied a share in the father's property on the ground that his parents' marriage was legally invalid?
Holding -> A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held:-
- Children born of VOID and VOIDABLE marriages are legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and are entitled to a share in the parents' self-acquired and ancestral property, including coparcenary property.
- The child's status and right to property must NOT be made to suffer on account of the legal infirmity of the parents' marriage. It would be manifestly unjust and constitutionally impermissible to penalise an innocent child for circumstances entirely beyond her or his control.
- The Court applied Article 21 and the principle of child welfare to hold that the right to dignity and a fair share in family property extends to children of annulled marriages.
Relevance to Section 6 PCMA - Revansiddappa provides the critical property and status dimension that Section 6 PCMA does NOT expressly address.
- Section 6 declares legitimacy; Revansiddappa makes that legitimacy meaningful by ensuring it carries full civil and inheritance consequences.
- Read together, Section 6 PCMA and Revansiddappa establish that:
The child is legitimate in status (PCMA, Section 6).
That legitimate status entitles the child to the same rights of inheritance and property as a child born of a valid marriage (Revansiddappa).
Note - Revansiddappa was decided under the Hindu Marriage Act, but its constitutional reasoning under Article 21 and its application of the welfare principle give it persuasive force across all personal law frameworks in which child marriages may arise.
Section 7. Power of district court to modify orders issued under Section 4 or Section 5.
- This Section empowers the District Court to :-
Add to; or
Modify; or
Revoke
- Any order made under Section 4 or 5.
- This power is to be exercised when there is any change in circumstances at any time during pendency of petition OR even after final disposal of the petition.
- Hence, this power can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings.
Section 8. Court to which petition should be made.
- If a relief is prayed for under Sections 3, 4, or 5, or all of them;
- Then the District Court shall include, the District Court having jurisdiction over the place where :-
The Defendant or Child ordinarily resides; OR
The Marriage was solemnised; OR
The parties last resided together; OR
The Petitioner is residing on the date of presentation of the petition.
- “Ordinarily resides” means a person's habitual, stable, and settled abode rather than a temporary or casual stay. It implies a continuous, non-temporary residence where the person lives as a matter of routine, not merely for a short duration, such as in a hotel or while traveling.
Section 9. Punishment for male adult marrying a child.
- This Section provides for the punishment of a male adult (above 18 years of age) who contracts a child marriage.
- The punishment is:-
Rigorous imprisonment which MAY extend to 2 years; OR
Fine which MAY extend to Rs. 1 Lakh; OR
Both.
- It is important to note that this Section ONLY applies to a male adult above 18 years of age. A male who is himself a child at the time of marriage is NOT punishable under this Section.
- The female contracting party is NOT made punishable under this Section.
Hardev Singh v. Harpreet Kaur (Crl. Appeal No. 1331 of 2013)
Facts - Hardev Singh and Harpreet Kaur married on 17.04.2010.
- Harpreet had completed 18 years of age at the time of marriage.
- As per school records, Hardev was below 18 years of age.
- The Punjab and Haryana High Court directed registration of criminal proceedings against Hardev under Section 9 of the PCMA.
- The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether such initiation of criminal proceedings was valid.
Issue - Whether Section 9 applies to a male who is himself a child (below 18 years) at the time of contracting a child marriage?
The Problem with Literal Interpretation - The Court noted that a strictly literal reading of Section 9 would produce an absurd result:-
A male aged between 18 and 21 years who contracts marriage with a female above 18 years of age would be punished under Section 9; but
The adult female would NOT be punished.
This would mean the Act penalises the male, who is himself a child under the Act, for contracting marriage with an adult female.
The Court held that such an interpretation goes against the object of the Act.
The Court's Interpretive Approach - To resolve this ambiguity, the Court deployed two interpretive tools:-
Legislative history and object -> The Act was passed to provide protection to child brides in particular.
The Court observed that child marriages predominantly involve husbands who are much older than the girl child, thereby hampering her development.
Section 9 must therefore be interpreted in the backdrop of gender discrimination and violence against females.
Marginal note -> The Court held:-
“It is well settled that where any ambiguity exists with regard to the interpretation of a legislative provision, the marginal note can be used in aid of construction, having regard to the object of the legislation and the mischief it seeks to remedy.”
Accordingly, the words "male adult above eighteen years of age, contracts a child marriage" in the body of Section 9 were to be read as "male adult above eighteen years of age marries a child", in conformity with the marginal note.
Holding - The Court set aside the High Court's order and held that:-
Section 9 DOES NOT apply where the male contracting party is himself below 18 years of age.
Section 9 DOES NOT apply where a male aged between 18 and 21 contracts marriage with a female adult above 18 years.
The sole legislative purpose of Section 9 is to protect minor girls by punishing adult males who marry them, it DOES NOT intend to punish a man for marrying an adult woman.
Note - This judgment is a significant instance of the Court preferring a purposive interpretation over a literal interpretation, invoking:-
Legislative history,
The object of the Act, and
The marginal note
- To prevent an absurd and constitutionally problematic outcome.
Section 10. Punishment for solemnising a child marriage.
- This Section punishes ANY person who:-
Performs, OR
Conducts, OR
Directs, OR
Abets,
- A child marriage.
- The punishment is:-
Rigorous imprisonment which MAY extend to 2 years; AND
Fine which MAY extend to Rs. 1 lakh.
- Note that unlike Section 9, the fine here is mandatory (the word used is “shall be liable”), NOT discretionary.
-- However, this Section provides a defence.
A person is NOT GUILTY if he proves that he had reasons to believe that the marriage was NOT a child marriage.
This is a reverse burden clause, unlike the general rule of criminal law, where the burden of proof usually lies with the prosecution. Here, the accused bears the burden of proving his good faith.
This exception is governed by two provisions of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (BSA):
Section 108 BSA (105 IEA) - This is the primary and direct basis. It provides that when an accused relies on a special exception or proviso contained in the law defining the offence, the burden of proving that exception lies upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.
The Section 10 defence is precisely such a proviso, it is embedded within the offence-creating provision itself.
Section 109 BSA (106 IEA) - This is a supplementary basis. It provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact lies upon him.
Whether the accused had “reasons to believe” the marriage was not a child marriage, what he was told, what documents he saw, what enquiries he made, is a fact peculiarly within his own knowledge that no one else can realistically prove or disprove.
Section 11. Punishment for promoting or permitting solemnisation of child marriages.
Clause (1) - This Section casts a wide net of criminal liability.
- It punishes any person having charge of the child, whether as a:-
Parent; OR
Guardian; OR
Any other person in any capacity (lawful or unlawful); OR
Any member of an organisation or association of persons.
- Who does any of the following:-
Does any act to promote the marriage; OR
Permits it to be solemnised; OR
Negligently fails to prevent it from being solemnised; OR
Attends or participates in a child marriage.
- The punishment is:-
Rigorous imprisonment which MAY extend to 2 years; AND
Fine which MAY extend to Rs. 1 lakh.
- Provided that NO woman SHALL be punishable with imprisonment (though she may be liable to pay a fine).
Clause (2) - This clause creates a presumption.
- If a minor child has contracted a marriage;
- Then it SHALL be presumed, unless the contrary is proved;
- That the person having the charge of such minor negligently failed to prevent the marriage.
This is a rebuttable presumption, meaning the person having charge of the minor can disprove it by showing that they exercised due care and diligence.
Section 12. Marriage of a minor child to be VOID in certain circumstances.
- Unlike Section 3 (where child marriages are generally VOIDABLE), this Section declares certain child marriages as VOID AB INITIO (VOID from the very beginning, hence NOT requiring any court order for the marriage to be set aside).
- This applies where the minor child:-
Is taken or enticed out of the keeping of the lawful guardian; OR
Is by force compelled, or by any deceitful means induced to go from any place; OR
Is sold for the purpose of marriage; AND is made to go through a form or marriage; OR if after the marriage the minor is sold, trafficked, or used for immoral purposes.
- In all such circumstances, the marriage SHALL be NULL and VOID.
- This Section is closely linked to offences under POCSO and the provisions on trafficking under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (formerly IPC), as the circumstances described here overlap with serious criminal conduct against children.
Independent Thought v. Union of India (AIR 2017 SC 4904; WP (Civil) No. 382 of 2013)
Facts -> Independent Thought, a child rights NGO, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution challenging Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC (Section 63 BNS), which at the time provided:-
"Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under 15 years of age, is not rape."
This created a direct conflict with PCMA, POCSO, the JJ Act, 2015, and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013, all of which recognise 18 years as the age of the child.
In effect, a husband could lawfully have intercourse with his wife aged 15–18 years, even though she was a child under every other operative statute.
Issue -> Whether Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC (Section 63 BNS), insofar as it related to wives below 18 years of age, was constitutionally valid?
Holding -> A two-judge bench comprising Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta (in two concurring opinions) held:-
Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC (Section 63 BNS) was read down, NOT struck down.
Read down means the provision was NOT abolished entirely.
It was narrowly reinterpreted to make it constitutionally valid.
The exception was read down to mean: "Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife NOT being under 18 years of age, is NOT rape."
The broader question of marital rape for wives above 18 was expressly left undecided.
Exception 2 as it originally stood was arbitrary and violative of:-
Article 14 - created an irrational classification between married and unmarried minor girls in cases of sexual violence.
Article 15 - discriminatory on the basis of sex.
Article 21 - infringed the right to life, dignity, bodily autonomy, and physical and mental development of the girl child.
The Court applied the rule of harmonious construction, observing a statutory consensus that 18 is the age of the child under PCMA, POCSO, the JJ Act 2015, and the Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013 - making Exception 2 at 15 an anomaly to be removed.
Important Note on Consent -> The Court's holding is NOT limited to non-consensual intercourse.
- Since a person below 18 years CANNOT legally consent to intercourse under any operative statute,
- Any intercourse by a husband with a wife below 18, whether she appears to "consent" or not, constitutes rape.
- Consent is legally irrelevant for this purpose.
Relevance to Section 12 PCMA -> While the Court did NOT directly reference Section 12 PCMA in its holding, the doctrinal connection is significant:-
Section 12 declares marriages involving force, enticement, deceit, sale, or trafficking of a minor as VOID AB INITIO, the most aggravated category of child marriages.
Independent Thought criminalises intercourse with a wife below 18 years in ALL child marriages, including, and most forcefully, those contracted under the Section 12 circumstances.
Note - Independent Thought's operation is NOT restricted to Section 12 marriages alone;
It applies equally to child marriages that are merely VOIDABLE under Section 3.
However, its protective force is most critical in the Section 12 context, where force, deception, or trafficking negates any possibility of meaningful assent.
Together, Section 12 PCMA (civil remedy - marriage is VOID AB INITIO) and Independent Thought (criminal remedy - intercourse is rape) operate as complementary protections for minor girls subjected to forced or trafficked marriages.
Note - Section 12 is NOT a purely civil remedy.
It operates alongside Sections 9, 10, and 11 PCMA, which impose criminal liability on those who contracted, solemnised, or permitted such a marriage.
Independent Thought adds a further distinct layer of criminal liability, specifically for the husband, in the form of the offence of rape.
Section 13. Power of court to issue injunction prohibiting child marriages.
- This Section provides a preventive remedy, rather than punishing after the fact, it empowers the court to STOP a child marriage before it happens.
Clause (1) - A Judicial Magistrate of the First Class or a Metropolitan Magistrate MAY issue an injunction (a court order prohibiting an act) against ANY person, including members of an organisation, prohibiting a child marriage, when it is satisfied that:-
A child marriage in contravention of this Act has been arranged; OR
Is about to be solemnised.
- This MAY be on the application of the Child Marriage Prohibition Officer (Section 16), OR
- ON receipt of a complaint from ANY person.
Clause (2) - A complaint under Clause (1) may be made by:-
- ANY person having personal knowledge or reason to believe; OR
- A non-governmental organisation (NGO) having reasonable information relating to the likelihood of solemnisation of a child marriage or child marriages.
Clause (3) - The Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class or Metropolitan Magistrate MAY also take suo moto cognizance (i.e., on its own initiative, even without a complaint) on the basis of any reliable report or information.
Clause (4) - For the purpose of preventing solemnisation of mass child marriages on certain auspicious days such as Akshaya Tritiya,
- The District Magistrate SHALL be deemed to be the Child Marriage Prohibition Officer (CMPO) with all the powers conferred on a CMPO under this Act.
Clause (5) - The District Magistrate SHALL also have additional powers to stop or prevent solemnisation of child marriages; AND
MAY take all appropriate measures, using as minimum force as required.
Clause (6) - NO Injunction SHALL be issued against a person UNLESS:-
Notice has been previously given to such person; AND
The person has been given an opportunity to show cause against the issuance of the injunction.
Provided, however, in case of urgency, the Court MAY issue an interim injunction (temporary injunction) WITHOUT notice.
Clause (7) - An injunction MAY be confirmed or vacated after:-
Giving notice; AND
Hearing the party against whom it was issued.
Clause (8) - The Court MAY,
On its own motion; OR
On the application of any aggrieved person,
- Rescind or alter an injunction already issued.
Clause (9) - Where an application under Clause (1) is received,
- The Court SHALL afford the applicant an early opportunity of being heard (either in person or through an advocate).
- If the Court rejects the application wholly or partly, it must record in writing its reasons for doing so.
Clause (10) - Whoever knowingly disobeys an injunction issued against him under this Section SHALL be punishable with:-
Imprisonment of either description for a term which MAY extend to 2 years; OR
Fine which MAY extend to Rs. 1 lakh; OR
Both.
Provided that NO woman SHALL be punishable with imprisonment.
Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action v. Union of India (2024 INSC 790; WP(C) No. 1234 of 2017)
Background -> The petitioner, Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action, a child rights NGO, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking comprehensive directions for effective implementation of the PCMA.
- The case came before a three-judge bench of CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.
Relevance to Section 13 -> The Court issued a series of directions specifically strengthening the preventive injunction framework under Section 13.
Judicial Measures ->The Court directed:-
Suo Motu Injunctions - All Magistrates vested with authority under Section 13 PCMA are directed to take proactive measures, including issuing suo motu injunctions to prevent the solemnisation of child marriages.
Focus on Auspicious Days - Magistrates are specifically directed to focus on "auspicious days" known for mass weddings (such as Akshaya Tritiya), when the occurrence of child marriages is notably high.
"Upon receiving credible information or even upon suspicion", Magistrates must use their judicial powers to halt such marriages.
Fast-Track Courts - The Union Government, in coordination with State Governments, is directed to assess the feasibility of establishing special fast-track courts exclusively to handle PCMA cases.
A status report on the establishment, resource allocation, and potential effectiveness of these courts is to be submitted to the Supreme Court within one year of the judgment.
Note - This is a feasibility direction, NOT a creation mandate. The Court stopped short of directly ordering the establishment of such courts.
Enforcement Measures -> The Court further directed:-
Accountability of Public Servants - Strict disciplinary and legal action SHALL be taken against any public servant found to be in deliberate neglect of duty concerning child marriage cases.
Public officials with knowledge of imminent marriages who fail to act SHALL be subject to stringent punishment under Section 199(c) BNS, 2023.
Specialised Units - State Governments were directed to ensure coordination between CMPOs, police, Special Juvenile Police Units (SJPUs), and Child Welfare Committees (CWCs) under the JJ Act framework to create an integrated child marriage prevention mechanism.
Legislative Gap - Child Betrothals - The Court identified a critical gap in the PCMA:-
The Act prohibits child marriages but does NOT stipulate against child betrothals.
Child betrothals refer to situations where a child is promised in marriage while still a minor, even though the actual marriage ceremony takes place only after the child grows older.
Since the PCMA ONLY prohibits the solemnisation of the marriage itself, those arranging child betrothals can evade liability under the Act entirely.
The betrothal binds the child's future while technically falling outside the Act's scope.
The Court observed: "Marriages fixed in the minority of a child also have the effect of violating their rights to free choice, autonomy, agency and childhood."
The Court also noted that international law, specifically CEDAW, stipulates against betrothals of minors.
Accordingly, the Court suggested (NOT directed), that "Parliament may consider outlawing child betrothals which may be used to evade penalty under the PCMA".
Importantly, the Court expressly declined to make a judicial declaration closing this gap itself, holding back in the absence of a direct Constitutional challenge on this specific issue before it.
Constitutional Holding -> Beyond the guidelines, the Court held that child marriage directly violates Articles 21 and 21-A of the Constitution by denying children their rights to self-determination, autonomy, reproductive freedom, health, and education.
The broader question of PCMA's precedence over personal laws was expressly left to Parliament, the Court declining to judicially override personal law frameworks on this question.
Section 14. Child Marriages in contravention of injunction orders to be VOID
- This Section provides that ANY child marriage solemnied in contravention of an injunction order issued under Section 13, whether interim or final, SHALL be VOID AB INITIO.
- This is be read alongside Section 12.
- These provisions create circumstances where a child marriage is VOID from the beginning.
- As opposed to the general rule under Section 3 which makes child marriages merely VOIDABLE.
Section 15. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.
- Notwithstanding anything in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), every offence punishable under this Act SHALL be:-
Cognizable AND non-bailable.
Cognizable -> The police CAN arrest the accused WITHOUT a warrant and CAN investigate WITHOUT prior permission of a Magistrate. [Sec. 2(g) of BNSS]
Non-bailable -> Bail is NOT a matter of right; it is at the discretion of the Court. [Sec. 2(c) of BNSS]
- The combined effect is that offences under this Act are treated with significant seriousness, allowing swift police action to prevent and prosecute child marriages.
Section 16. Child Marriage Prohibition Officers.
Clause (1) - The State Government SHALL, by notification in the Official Gazette
- Appoint one or more Child Marriage Prohibition Officers (CMPO/s)
- For the whole State OR for specified parts thereof.
- Each CMPO SHALL have jurisdiction over the area specified in the notification.
Clause (2) - The State Government MAY also request the following to assist the CMPO:-
A respectable member of the locality with a record of social service; OR
An officer of the Gram Panchayat or Municipality; OR
An officer of the Government or any Public Sector Undertaking; OR
An officer bearer of any non-governmental organisation.
- Such persons, once requested, are bound to act accordingly.
Clause (3) - The duties of the CMPO are:-
To prevent solemnisation of child marriages by taking such action as he deems fit;
To collect evidence for effective prosecution of persons contravening the Act;
To advise and counsel residents of the locality NOT to indulge in promoting, helping, aiding, or allowing child marriages.
To create awareness of the evils resulting from child marriages;
To sensitize the community on the issues of child marriages;
To furnish periodical returns and statistics as directed by the State Government; AND
To discharge such other functions as MAY be assigned by the State Government.
Clause (4) - The State Government MAY, subject to conditions and limitation, invest the CMPO with powers of a police officer as specified by notification.
Clause (5) - The CMPO has the power to move the Court for orders under Sections 4, 5 and 13;
AND along with the child under Section 3.
Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action v. Union of India (2024 INSC 790; WP(C) No. 1234 of 2017)
The Enforcement Gap -> The petitioner placed before the Court significant data on the failure of CMPO machinery under Section 16:-
As per RTI responses, ONLY 23 out of 36 States and Union Territories responded to queries about child marriage enforcement; ONLY 14 provided substantive data.
Critically, ONLY Haryana and Sikkim had appointed exclusive CMPOs.
In every other State, CMPO functions were being discharged by officers already burdened with other responsibilities.
The data further revealed significant discrepancies between NCRB figures and State department reports, alongside persistently low reporting and conviction rates in child marriage cases.
The Court found these findings to constitute a systemic enforcement failure under Section 16.
A failure NOT of law, but of the authorities charged with implementing it.
The Court's Directions -> To address this, the Court issued the following directions:-
Exclusive CMPO Appointments - All States and Union Territories are directed to appoint dedicated, exclusive CMPOs who are NOT burdened with other responsibilities.
The existing practice of assigning CMPO duties to officers already holding other posts is contrary to the legislative intent of Section 16 and must be discontinued.
Training Programmes - The Ministry of Women and Child Development (MoWCD) is directed to conduct training programmes for CMPOs to equip them with the skills, legal knowledge, and sensitivity required for effective discharge of their Section 16(3) duties.
Accountability - Strict disciplinary and legal action SHALL be taken against any public servant found to be in deliberate neglect of duty.
Officials with knowledge of imminent child marriages who fail to act SHALL be held liable under Section 199(c) BNS, 2023.
Circulation of Judgment - The judgment was directed to be circulated to the Secretaries of all relevant Ministries, NALSA, NCPCR, and State Chief Secretaries, for coordinated implementation across all levels of government.
Seema v. Ashwani Kumar (2006) 2 SCC 578
The Supreme Court directed the States and Union Territories to take steps for compulsory registration of marriages.
The Court treated registration as an important measure to ensure legal certainty, prevent fraud, and create an official record of the marriage.
The judgment is often cited in the context of child marriage prevention, because registration can help verify the age and marital status of the parties and thereby assist enforcement.
However, it is NOT a direct interpretation of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
Its relevance to the PCMA is therefore indirect and practical, not doctrinal: it supports enforcement by improving proof, record-keeping, and detection of underage marriages.
Section 17. Child Marriage Prohibition Officers to be public servants.
- The Child Marriage Prohibition Officers SHALL be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Now Section 2(28) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).
- This classification has two important implications:-
Any obstruction or assault on a CMPO while performing his duties will attract the offence of obstructing a servant.
Actions taken by the CMPO in good faith are protected (Section 18).
Section 18. Protection of action taken in good faith.
- NO
Suit;
Prosecution; OR
Other legal proceedings,
- SHALL lie against the CMPO for:-
Anything done, OR
Intended to be done,
- In good faith in pursuance of this Act OR any rule OR order made thereunder.
- This Section shields CMPOs from frivolous litigation by parties seeking to obstruct enforcement of the Act.
- The phrase “good faith” is crucial. This protection does NOT extend to acts done with malice OR in bad faith.
Section 19. Power of State Government to make rules.
Clause (1) - The State Government MAY, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the provisions of this Act.
Clause (2) - Every rule made under this Act SHALL, as soon as possible after it is made, be laid before the State Legislature.
- This is a standard rule-making and legislative oversight provision.
- “Laying before the Legislature” ensures democratic accountability.
- The legislature can scrutinise and, if necessary, annul ANY rule made under this Act.
Section 20. Amendment of Act No. 25 of 1955 (Hindu Marriage Act, 1955).
- This Section amends Section 18(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- Prior to this Section, it previously dealt with the penalty for solemnising a marriage in contravention of the minimum age conditions under Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- The amended provision now provides that violation of the age condition [Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act] SHALL attract:-
Rigorous imprisonment which MAY extend to 2 years; OR
Fine which MAY extend to Rs. 1 lakh; OR
Both.
- This brings the penalty under the Hindu Marriage Act in line with the penalties prescribed under this Act and ensures consistency across personal law frameworks.
Note on Harmonious Construction - This Section, read alongside Lajja Devi v. State (NCT of Delhi), confirms that the PCMA and the HMA are intended to operate as complementary, NOT competing legislative instruments.
- The PCMA does NOT displace the HMA’s age conditions; it reinforces them by harmonising the penal consequences.
Section 21. Repeal and Savings.
Clause (1) - The Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 (Act 19 of 1929), also known as the Sarda Act, is hereby repealed.
- The Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 was the earlier legislation aimed at preventing child marriages.
- It is replaced entirely by this Act, which introduces stronger protections, including the concept of voidability and dedicated enforcement machinery in the form of CMPOs.
Clause (2) - Notwithstanding the repeal, all cases and proceedings pending under the repealed Act at the time this Act comes into force SHALL continue and be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Act, as if this Act had NOT been passed.
This is a standard savings clause.
It ensures that legal proceedings already underway are NOT disrupted merely because the parent statute has been repealed.
Parties who had already moved court under the 1929 Act are NOT prejudiced.
Quick References
Section | Subject | Key point |
Section 1 | Short title, extent, commencement | Act extends to the whole of India, applies to citizens outside India, and came into force on 1 November 2007. |
Section 2 | Definitions | “Child” means male below 21 and female below 18; “child marriage” means a marriage where either party is a child. |
Section 3 | Voidable marriages | Every child marriage is voidable at the option of the contracting party who was a child; petition must be filed within 2 years of attaining majority. |
Section 4 | Maintenance and residence | Female contracting party may be awarded maintenance until remarriage; court may also order residence. |
Section 5 | Custody and maintenance of children | Custody of children born of child marriage is decided on the welfare and best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. |
Section 6 | Legitimacy of children | Children born of a child marriage are legitimate even if the marriage is later annulled. |
Section 7 | Power to modify orders | District Court may add to, modify, or revoke orders made under Sections 4 or 5 when circumstances change. |
Section 8 | Court of jurisdiction | Petition under Sections 3, 4, or 5 lies before the District Court having jurisdiction based on residence, place of solemnisation, last cohabitation, or petitioner’s residence. |
Section 9 | Punishment for adult male | Adult male marrying a child is punishable with imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine up to ₹1 lakh, or both; not applicable to a male child. |
Section 10 | Punishment for solemniser | Any person who performs, conducts, directs, or abets a child marriage is punishable with imprisonment up to 2 years and fine up to ₹1 lakh; good-faith defence available. |
Section 11 | Punishment for promoters/permitters | Parents, guardians, or persons in charge who promote, permit, negligently fail to prevent, or participate in child marriage are punishable; presumption applies if a minor is married. |
Section 12 | Void marriages | Child marriage is void ab initio if the child is taken, enticed, forced, deceived, sold, trafficked, or used for immoral purposes. |
Section 13 | Injunctions | Magistrate may issue preventive injunctions to stop child marriages; DM acts as CMPO for mass marriage situations. |
Section 14 | Breach of injunction | A child marriage solemnised in breach of a Section 13 injunction is void ab initio. |
Section 15 | Cognizable and non-bailable | All offences under the Act are cognizable and non-bailable. |
Section 16 | CMPOs | State must appoint Child Marriage Prohibition Officers; they prevent marriages, collect evidence, create awareness, and seek injunctions. |
Section 17 | CMPO as public servant | CMPO is deemed a public servant for legal purposes. |
Section 18 | Protection for good-faith action | No suit, prosecution, or other legal proceeding lies against CMPO for good-faith acts done under the Act. |
Section 19 | Rule-making power | State Government may make rules for carrying out the Act, subject to legislative laying. |
Section 20 | Amendment of Hindu Marriage Act | Penalty under Section 18 of the Hindu Marriage Act is aligned with the PCMA penalty framework. |
Section 21 | Repeal and savings | Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 is repealed; pending cases continue under the repealed Act. |
Table of Cases
Case | Core issue | Key holding / relevance |
Hardev Singh v. Harpreet Kaur | Whether Section 9 applies to a male who is himself a child | Section 9 does not apply to a male below 18; the provision targets an adult male marrying a child. |
Lajja Devi v. State (NCT of Delhi) | Scope and effect of Section 3 voidability | Child marriage is voidable, not void; only the party who was a child can seek annulment, within the limitation period. |
K. A. Abdul Jaleel v. T. A. Shahida | Welfare principle in family-law relief | Court emphasized that welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody and related relief. |
Revansiddappa v. Mallikarjun | Status and rights of children born from invalid marriages | Children born of void or voidable marriages are legitimate in status and cannot be penalised for the parents’ marriage. |
Independent Thought v. Union of India | Marital rape exception for wives below 18 | Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC was read down so intercourse with a wife below 18 is rape; supports the child-protection framework. |
Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action v. Union of India | Enforcement of the PCMA | Child marriage violates Articles 21 and 21-A; the Court strengthened preventive injunctions and enforcement mechanisms under the Act. |
The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 is a crucial step towards protecting children's rights, dignity, and future.
Do you think India is doing enough to eradicate child marriage, or is stronger enforcement still needed?
Share your thoughts in the comments below and continue learning by joining us at legaljourney.
Join us on Telegram for regular updates!
Follow us on YouTube for detailed video explanation on Indian Constitutional Law.
Download the PDF version of this article here.
Comments