Sections 5(iii) and 12 – Constitution of India, Articles 19 and 21 – Habeas Corpus – Marriage of male below prescribed statutory age – Validity of marriage – Autonomy of major individuals and live-in relationships – Limits of judicial interference in personal choice. The appellant No. 1 (husband) married Thushara according to Hindu rites. At the time of marriage, the bride was 19 years old (a major), whereas the bridegroom was under 21 years of age (the prescribed marriageable age for males under Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955). The respondent No. 4 (father of the girl) filed a Habeas Corpus petition before the High Court of Kerala, alleging illegal detention. The High Court held that the marriage was invalid because appellant No. 1 had not attained the age of 21 years, and accordingly entrusted the "custody" of the major daughter to her father. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court. Held, allowing the appeal:

advocatemmmohan

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 2254, 2018 CRI LJ 3009, 2018 (16) SCC 602, 2018 CRILR(SC MAH GUJ) 433

BENCH: A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.

AUTHOR: A.K. Sikri, J.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: April 20, 2018

HEADNOTE

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act 25 of 1955), Sections 5(iii) and 12 – Constitution of India, Articles 19 and 21 – Habeas Corpus – Marriage of male below prescribed statutory age – Validity of marriage – Autonomy of major individuals and live-in relationships – Limits of judicial interference in personal choice.

The appellant No. 1 (husband) married Thushara according to Hindu rites. At the time of marriage, the bride was 19 years old (a major), whereas the bridegroom was under 21 years of age (the prescribed marriageable age for males under Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955). The respondent No. 4 (father of the girl) filed a Habeas Corpus petition before the High Court of Kerala, alleging illegal detention. The High Court held that the marriage was invalid because appellant No. 1 had not attained the age of 21 years, and accordingly entrusted the "custody" of the major daughter to her father. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Held, allowing the appeal:

¶ 1. Marriage of Male Below 21 Years is Voidable, Not Void:

A marriage solemnized in contravention of the age condition specified in Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is not null and void ab initio. At most, under Section 12 of the Act, such a marriage is voidable at the option of the parties. The High Court erred in declaring the marriage invalid in a Habeas Corpus proceeding.

¶ 2. Right of Adults to Live Together / Recognition of Live-in Relationships:

Even assuming the parties were not competent to enter into a formal wedlock due to statutory age restrictions, two consenting adults have the right to live together even outside wedlock. Live-in relationships are legally recognized by the Legislature under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

¶ 3. Autonomy, Individual Choice, and Scope of Habeas Corpus:

The primary function of a writ of Habeas Corpus is to secure personal liberty and protect individuals from illegal restraint. When a person is a major, she is entitled to exercise her independent choice regarding where and with whom she wishes to reside. Parental concern or societal norms cannot override the fundamental right of choice guaranteed to an adult under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Courts cannot assume the role of parens patriae over a major individual.

(Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., 2018 SCC Online SC 343; Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas, (2018) 2 SCC 197, relied on).