‘Discriminatory’ provisions of the Child Marriage Act of 1929 are overturned by the LHC

'Discriminatory' provisions of the Child Marriage Act of 1929 are overturned by the LHC

The Lahore High Court (LHC) has ordered the Punjab government to amend some portions of the Child Marriage Act, 1929, stating that it is “discriminatory” and imposing different age requirements for men and women to be eligible to get married.

In a 5-page ruling delivered by Justice Shahid Karim on Monday, the high court ruled that certain sections of the 95-year-old Act, specifically Sections 2(a) and (b), which set different legal ages for males and females eligible for marriage, which are 18 and 16 years, respectively, were “discriminatory.”

It is important to note that the Punjab Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Act, 2015, which made child marriage illegal in the province, superseded the aforementioned statute.

The marriage rules were designed with “social economic and educational factors rather than religious” considerations in mind, the court noted, therefore comprehensive measures against underage marriages were required.

It stated, “The extract set out above makes a compelling case for the executive to step up and take effective measures to counter the debilitating effect of child marriage based on physiological and sociological factors.”

The LHC court noted that although the Act’s discrepancy in the legal age requirements for male and female marriage eligibility was “discriminatory,” all citizens were equal under the law and that any attempt to pass any form of discriminatory action against any citizen would be prohibited.

In compliance with the court ruling, the provincial government has been given 15 days to alter the Act.

All things considered, section 2(a)’s wording, “if a male…and if a female is under sixteen years of age,” are deemed unconstitutional and have no legal standing. The LHC decision stated, “They are struck down.”

It ended, saying, “The Government of Punjab (its relevant department) is directed to issue the revised version of 1929 Act (based on this judgment) within the next fifteen days.”