38.6c New Delhi, India, Monday, March 16, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Delhi HC Seeks Reply From Centre On Plea Seeking Abolition Of Differential Marriageable Age for Men And Women [Read Petition]

By LawStreet News Network      20 August, 2019 05:08 PM      0 Comments
Delhi HC Seeks Reply From Centre On Plea Seeking Abolition Of Differential Marriageable Age for Men And Women [Read Petition]

The Delhi High Court on August 19, 2019, has sought Centres response on a PIL challenging the difference in age for marriage for men and women.

The petition was filed by Ashwini Upadhyay alleging that the distinction is based on patriarchal stereotypes and has no scientific backing.

The Division Bench of Justice D.N. Patel and Justice Hari Shankar directed the government to file their affidavit by the next date of hearing on October 30, 2019.

Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija, who argued for the petitioner, submitted the following before the Bench:

  1. Marriageable age distinctions in all the statutes should be struck down.
  2. It is significant to bring about gender equality as enshrined under Article 15.
  3. This distinction deprives women from lower income groups or backward castes from opportunities of higher education.
  4. As held by the Supreme Court in Sabarimala judgment, self-determination and choice is a significant facet of gender equality and dignity of women as enshrined under Article 15.
  5. Statutes should be interpreted in light with changing social values regarding individual liberties.

According to the petitioner, the distinction in minimum age for marriage not only violates right to gender equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution but also it goes against India's obligations under The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

Further, as per the petitioner, the distinction leads to power imbalance in a matrimonial household which further aggravates social deprivation of women. The higher minimum age for men is guided by a flawed perception that the husband is the sole breadwinner of the family and hence requires higher education before marriage to make an earning for himself and his family.

[Read Petition]



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS


TOP STORIES

tarun-holi-murder-case-delhi-police-पर-क्यों-नाराज़-हैं-पड़ोसी-law-street-journal
Trending Videos
Tarun Holi Murder Case: Delhi Police पर क्यों नाराज़ हैं पड़ोसी? || Law Street Journal

In this ground report on the Tarun Holi Murder Case, the team of Law Street Journal reaches Uttam Nagar, Delhi, where a shocking incident during Holi celebrations allegedly led to the death of a young man, Tarun. The dispute reportedly began after a Holi balloon thrown by a child accidentally hit a woman, which later escalated into a violent confrontation.

10 March, 2026 07:33 PM
itat-mumbai-deletes-1159-crore-addition-under-section-69a-brokers-papers-and-retracted-statement-held-insufficient
Trending Judiciary
ITAT Mumbai Deletes ₹11.59 Crore Addition Under Section 69A; Broker’s Papers and Retracted Statement Held Insufficient [Read Order]

Mumbai ITAT deletes ₹11.59 crore addition under Section 69A, holding broker’s papers and a retracted statement insufficient to prove alleged on-money receipts.

11 March, 2026 04:41 PM
prosecution-is-not-persecution-re-examining-the-constitutional-role-of-the-state-in-indias-criminal-justice-system-under-the-crpc-and-the-bnss
Trending Vantage Points
Prosecution is Not Persecution: Re-Examining the Constitutional Role of the State in India’s Criminal Justice System under the CrPC and the BNSS

Advocate Udit Arora examines how prosecution under CrPC and BNSS remains a constitutional duty—balancing justice, fairness, victim rights and protection of the innocent.

11 March, 2026 05:16 PM
sc-dismisses-mcgms-challenge-to-arbitral-award-holds-conduct-of-party-relevant-to-decide-jurisdictional-challenge
Trending Judiciary
SC Dismisses MCGM’s Challenge to Arbitral Award, Holds Conduct of Party Relevant to Decide Jurisdictional Challenge [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court dismisses MCGM’s challenge to arbitral award, holds party conduct relevant while deciding jurisdictional objections under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act.

13 March, 2026 12:31 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email