AZKA WAHID vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Law and Parliamentary Affairs Department, Lahore Ss

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

AZKA WAHID VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Law and Parliamentary Affairs Department, Lahore Ss. 2(a) & 2(b) [as amended/substituted by the Punjab Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Act, 2015]---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 35---Child marriage---Principle of policy---State to protect marriage, the family, the mother and the child---'Child', definition of---Distinction drawn on the basis of gender while providing different ages for males and females---Constitutionality definition of 'child' given in S. 2(a) and (b) of the Act 1929 means a person who if a male is under 18 years of age and if a female is under 16 years of age and the punishments have been accordingly given in S. 4 of the Act 1929---Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, (and its amendments) is a step towards fulfilment of duty by the State under Art. 35 of Constitution which provides that "The State shall protect the marriage, the family, the mother and the child"; it specifically mentions the mother and not the father---It is of crucial importance to protect marriage, the family, the mother and the child to put a restraint on child marriage yet the centre of the family, the mother, has been grossly discriminated which undermines the cogency of the constitutional scheme---It is essential for the protection of family (with the mother and the child as its more important elements) to protect a female from being subjected to child marriage---The mandate of Art. 35 was not lost on the legislature while enacting the Act 1929---But, for some reason which cannot be discerned, unmistakable partisan slant has muddled the clear stream of policy objectives animating the 2015 amendments---The difference in ages in the definition of 'child' was left unchanged in the 2015 amendments, which does not comport with the mandate of Art. 25 of Constitution---Thus, the definition of child, in its present form, in the 1929 Act is discriminatory---Words in S. 2(a) of 1929 Act that "if a male ….and if a female is under sixteen years of age" being unconstitutional were held to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect; and were struck down---High Court directed the Govt. of Punjab (its relevant department) to issue the revised version of the 1929 Act within the next fifteen days and also upload that version on its website for information---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

AZKA WAHID vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Law and Parliamentary Affairs Department, Lahore Ss — 2025 PLD 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD