The pari materia test that lets courts void child marriages the HMA couldn't touch.

She was 15. He was blind in one eye. The law said the marriage couldn't be undone. The High Court disagreed.

In 2009, a 15-year-old girl was married off by her maternal uncle and maternal grandfather in Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh. The groom was a man blind in one eye — a fact she discovered only after the wedding. The marriage was never consummated. Her father, who had not consented, stepped in. The wife filed a petition to have the marriage declared void or voidable. The trial court — the 3rd Additional District Judge, Ujjain — found the facts against the husband: yes, the wife was a minor at marriage; yes, the husband had concealed his unilateral blindness. But the court dismissed the suit. Its reasoning was simple: under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a marriage in breach of the minimum age condition is neither void nor voidable. The wife was trapped. Sixteen years later, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore set aside that judgment and declared the marriage null and void. The stakes were not just one woman's freedom — they were the question of whether a child marriage can ever be undone when the primary statute is silent.

The marriage that wasn't a marriage

The facts were not in serious dispute. The appellant-wife was born in 1994. On 21 May 2009, she was married to the respondent-husband. She was 15. He was a major. The marriage was performed without her father's consent. After the wedding, she discovered that the husband was blind in one eye — a condition he had not disclosed. The marriage was never consummated. The wife filed a suit under Sections 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a declaration that the marriage was void or voidable. She also sought divorce under Section 13 of the Act on the ground of cruelty.

The trial court's dead end

The 3rd Additional District Judge, Ujjain, delivered judgment on 12 February 2014. The court found that the wife was indeed a minor at the time of marriage. It also found that the husband was blind in one eye. But the court held that under the Hindu Marriage Act, breach of the minimum age condition under Section 5(iii) does not make a marriage void under Section 11 or voidable under Section 12. The court relied on Gindan v. Barelal (AIR 1976 MP 83), which held precisely that. The suit was dismissed. The wife was left with no remedy under the Act she had invoked.

The argument that changed everything

The wife appealed to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. Her counsel argued that the trial court had erred. The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (PCMA) had been enacted after the Hindu Marriage Act. Section 3 of the PCMA makes child marriages voidable at the option of the minor spouse. Section 12 of the PCMA gives the minor spouse the right to seek annulment. The counsel argued that the HMA and the PCMA must be read together as statutes in pari materia — dealing with the same subject matter. The husband's counsel opposed, arguing that the HMA was a complete code and that the PCMA could not be used to fill gaps in it.

The Supreme Court's guidance

The High Court found powerful support in two Supreme Court decisions. In Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 800, the Supreme Court had held that after the PCMA 2006 was enacted, both the HMA 1955 and the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939 should have been suitably amended, but this was not done. The Court held that a marriage with a female less than 15 or more than 15 years is not void but voidable. In Bhagwati alias Reena v. Anil Choubey (2017) 13 SCC 582, the Supreme Court held that only the minor spouse has the right to seek annulment under Section 12 of the PCMA 2006. The High Court also relied on T. Sivakumar v. Inspector of Police, Thiruvallur (2011 (5) CTC 689), which held that a marriage contracted with a female less than 18 years and more than 15 years is not void but voidable and cannot be called valid.

The doctrine that unlocked the door

The High Court invoked the doctrine of pari materia. It relied on Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Sriyanesh Knitters (1999) 7 SCC 359, which held that where a statute is not exhaustive, it must be read together with other Acts dealing with the same subject. The Court held that the HMA and the PCMA are statutes in pari materia — both deal with marriage. The PCMA fills the gap left by the HMA regarding child marriages. The Court held that where a marriage is solemnized in violation of the minimum age requirement under Section 5(iii) of the HMA, and the HMA does not provide for declaring such marriage void or voidable under Sections 11/12, the court can invoke Section 3 of the PCMA 2006 read with the doctrine of pari materia to declare the marriage voidable at the instance of the party who was a child at the time of marriage.

THE PLAY: When a client approaches you with a child marriage that the HMA cannot undo, do not stop at the HMA. Read it together with the PCMA 2006 under the pari materia doctrine. The PCMA fills the gap. The marriage is voidable at the option of the minor spouse.

An independent ground: cruelty

The High Court also found an independent ground for divorce under Section 13 of the HMA. The Court held that the marriage of a minor girl with a major male constitutes mental and physical cruelty. The wife was not ready to perform marital obligations. The husband's concealment of his blindness added to the cruelty. This provided an additional basis for setting aside the marriage.

What the court actually ordered

Justice Vivek Rusia, writing for the Bench with Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi concurring, set aside the judgment and decree dated 12 February 2014 of the 3rd Additional District Judge, Ujjain. The marriage was declared null and void. The appeal was allowed.

Why this matters for practitioners

This judgment is a masterclass in statutory interpretation. The trial court was not wrong on the text of the HMA — Section 11 does not list breach of Section 5(iii) as a ground for nullity, and Section 12 does not cover underage marriage. But the High Court showed that a statute is not an island. The PCMA 2006 was enacted to address the very problem the HMA left unresolved. By reading the two statutes together, the Court gave effect to the legislative intent behind both. For advocates, this means that when the primary statute is silent, look for a complementary statute. For CFOs and founders, the lesson is broader: when a contract or regulation is silent on a point, look for a related statute or regulation that fills the gap. The law is a system, not a collection of isolated rules.

The judgment also sends a clear message: child marriages are not beyond remedy. The minor spouse has a right to walk away. The law will not leave her trapped in a marriage she never consented to.

The bottom line: If you are advising a client who was a minor at the time of marriage and the HMA offers no remedy, invoke the PCMA 2006 under the pari materia doctrine — the marriage is voidable at the option of the minor spouse, and the court can declare it null and void.