Section 3. Age of majority of persons domiciled in India
1[3. Age of majority of persons domiciled in India.(1) Every person domiciled in India shall attain the age of majority on his completing the age of eighteen years and not before.
(2) In computing the age of any person, the day on which he was born is to be included as a whole day and he shall be deemed to have attained majority at the beginning of the eighteenth anniversary of that day.]
How courts have applied section 3
- A person attains majority on completing eighteen years, not before.1,2,3,4
- In computing age, the day of birth counts as a whole day, and a specified age is attained on the day preceding the birthday anniversary.5,6
- The saving clause of the Majority Act preserves personal-law rules for marriage, dower, divorce, and adoption.7
- For transfer of property inter vivos by a Mohammedan, the age of majority is 18 years, not puberty.2
- A person who has attained 18 years is a major even where a guardian was appointed by court.3
- A guardian's contract on behalf of a minor is specifically enforceable only if within the guardian's competence and in the minor's interest.4
Read the full overviewShow less· 3 paragraphs
The judgements mostly deal with when the age of majority is reached and how that age is computed. Courts applied Section 3 of the Majority Act, 1875 to hold that a person attains majority on completing eighteen years. One court read Section 3(2) of the Act to mean that the day of birth counts as a whole day, so a specified age is attained on the day preceding the birthday anniversary. The same rule was followed in a foreign-sovereignty context, where a person born on 01.01.1969 was held to complete 37 years at midnight on 31.12.2005. In another computation, a person born on 10.5.1978 was held not to have completed 16 years on 9.5.1994.1,2,3,4,5,6
Several judgements circumscribed the operation of Section 3. In matters of marriage, dower, and divorce, the saving clause of the Act preserves the personal-law rule of puberty, so a bride who had attained puberty was not a minor for marriage, and the age of majority for transfer of property inter vivos by a Mohammedan is 18 years, not puberty. One court held the Section inapplicable to a male seeking to annul a child marriage, where the limitation period ran from attaining 21 years under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. Courts also held that a guardian-appointed minor still attains majority at 18, and a minor cannot consent to reside in a live-in relationship. Two judgements turned on majority for specific performance of a guardian's contract, one holding a contract enforceable only if in the minor's interest, while another held a minor's repudiation possible after 18.7,2,8,3,9,4
In several routine civil matters, courts relied on Section 3 to settle incidental questions. One court held that a husband's custody petition was competent because the daughters had ceased to be minors under a different statute. Another court, in a superannuation dispute, deemed the appellant's age of entry as 18 years based on a Board resolution, not the Majority Act. In a surrogacy case, the court followed Section 3(2) of the Act to hold that the 50th birthday falls within the eligibility window but the window does not extend to the 51st birthday. Four near-identical Bombay High Court judgements held that describing wards as 'son' and 'daughter' was not a misrepresentation, without turning on majority.1,10,11,12,13,14,15
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 3
Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal; SC 1973; Guardians and Wards Act 1890 s. 25 custody application maintainability; s. 19 father-as-guardian bar; Indian Divorce Act s. 3(5) minority ages, ss. 41-42 custody powers, s. 37 proviso alimony arrears; welfare of minor children paramount over parental rights;
AllowedOpenSuperannuation before 60 on completing 42 years' qualifying service; deemed age 18 at entry; Rule 73 Bihar Service Code 1952; Rule 57 and Rule 5 of Section IV Bihar Pension Rules 1950; Board resolution 15.01.2004; Office Order 14.02.2004;
Matter referred to larger b…OpenAppellant convicted of murder claimed juvenile status on the date of offence; trial and High Court rejected it using Amit Das. The Supreme Court held that case stood overruled by Pratap Singh, applied the offence-date rule and day-of-birth computation to find he was under 16, set aside the conviction route and…
AllowedOpenSurrogacy age limit; Section 4(iii)(c)(I) Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 interpretation; whether intending female eligible until completion of 50th year or becomes ineligible on attaining 50; General Clauses Act, 1897 Section 9 'to' includes last day; Majority Act, 1875 age computation;
Writ Petition (Civil)OpenSecond appeal against concurrent decrees cancelling a 1946 sale deed and declaring partition shares. The Court held that under the Indian Majority Act the executant was a minor at 16, the deed was void, expert evidence disproved execution, and the suit was timely under Article 59. Appeal dismissed.
DismissedOpenCM(M) — Age of majority — Guardianship — The J&K Majority Act, 1920 AD stands repealed upon coming into force of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 (31.10.2019), and the Majority Act, 1875 (Central Act) now extends to UT of Jammu & Kashmir, under which every person domiciled in India attains majority at 18…
Civil Miscellaneous (Main)DismissedOpen
Show 6 more
The High Court dismissed the appeal against the First Appellate Court's dismissal of a suit for specific performance. The Court held enforcement was barred as the sale of the minor's share was not in his interest given the low price, the agreement lapsed when earnest money was fully adjusted for the remaining shares,…
DismissedOpenSahina Akter v Md. Amadadul Haque (HC Tripura, FA No. 06 of 2023, decided 11.07.2024, Arindam Lodh J.): wife's appeal against dismissal of divorce suit fails. Marriage of a 15-year-9-month bride upheld as valid — puberty attained at 13;
DismissedOpenThis appeal concerned the computation of age for recruitment to Railway Directorate posts. The High Court held that the petitioner, born on 01.01.1969, crossed the outer age limit of 37 years as fixed on 01.01.2006 because he completed that age at midnight on 31 December 2005. The petition was dismissed.
DismissedOpenHigh Court of Punjab & Haryana examined whether a minor girl under 18 can live in a marriage-like relationship. Court held such relationships void and custody must go to a Child Care Institution. Petitioner kept in Ashiana, Sector-15, Chandigarh.
DisposedOpenA criminal revision petition challenged the dismissal of an application to treat the accused as a juvenile. The court held that the petitioner, who was 18 years and 9 months old when the offence was committed, ceased to be a 'child in conflict with law' upon attaining the age of eighteen years, consistent with Supreme…
DismissedOpenSanmati Devi and 2 Ors. Vs Nand Kumar Chauhan @ Nan Kumar Chauhan @ Nayan Kumar Chanuhan (H)
Outcome: DisposedThree revision petitioners challenged an order dismissing their petition under Article 226 challenging a trial court judgment on limitation in a suit for annulment of marriage under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
DisposedOpen
Sucheta Desmond Rodrigues, Mumbai vs the Bombay Presidency Golf Club Limited Mumbai and Ors.
Outcome: DisposedMembers' club — dependent membership — ward versus 'child'/'dependent child' — guardianship order — alleged misrepresentation/false declaration in membership form — estoppel — perverse contradictory findings — interpretation of club Bye-Laws/AOA — age-based dependency (21/marriage) — RTE Act s.2(g);
DisposedOpenSucheta Desmond Rodrigues, Mumbai vs the Bombay Presidency Golf Club Limited Mumbai and Ors.
Outcome: DisposedClub membership – dependent children – ward versus child – Bombay Presidency Golf Club – Bye-Laws and Articles of Association – misdeclaration in membership application form – estoppel – fraud vitiates instrument – guardianship (Guardian Petition No.
DisposedOpenSucheta Desmond Rodrigues, Mumbai vs the Bombay Presidency Golf Club Limited Mumbai and Ors.
Outcome: DisposedClub membership – dependent children – ward versus child – Bombay Presidency Golf Club – Bye-Laws and Articles of Association – misdeclaration in membership application form – estoppel – fraud vitiates instrument – guardianship (Guardian Petition No.
DisposedOpenSucheta Desmond Rodrigues, Mumbai vs the Bombay Presidency Golf Club Limited Mumbai and Ors.
Outcome: DisposedMembers' club — dependent membership — ward versus 'child'/'dependent child' — guardianship order — alleged misrepresentation/false declaration in membership form — estoppel — perverse contradictory findings — interpretation of club Bye-Laws/AOA — age-based dependency (21/marriage) — RTE Act s.2(g);
DisposedOpenSucheta Desmond Rodrigues, Mumbai vs the Bombay Presidency Golf Club Limited Mumbai and Ors.
Outcome: DisposedClub membership – dependent children – ward versus child – Bombay Presidency Golf Club – Bye-Laws and Articles of Association – misdeclaration in membership application form – estoppel – fraud vitiates instrument – guardianship (Guardian Petition No.
DisposedOpenSucheta Desmond Rodrigues, Mumbai vs the Bombay Presidency Golf Club Limited Mumbai and Ors.
Outcome: DisposedClub membership – dependent children – ward versus child – Bombay Presidency Golf Club – Bye-Laws and Articles of Association – misdeclaration in membership application form – estoppel – fraud vitiates instrument – guardianship (Guardian Petition No.
DisposedOpen
Show 4 more
Sucheta Desmond Rodrigues, Mumbai vs the Bombay Presidency Golf Club Limited Mumbai and Ors.
Outcome: DisposedMembers' club — dependent membership — ward versus 'child'/'dependent child' — guardianship order — alleged misrepresentation/false declaration in membership form — estoppel — perverse contradictory findings — interpretation of club Bye-Laws/AOA — age-based dependency (21/marriage) — RTE Act s.2(g);
DisposedOpenSucheta Desmond Rodrigues, Mumbai vs the Bombay Presidency Golf Club Limited Mumbai and Ors.
Outcome: DisposedClub membership – dependent children – ward versus child – Bombay Presidency Golf Club – Bye-Laws and Articles of Association – misdeclaration in membership application form – estoppel – fraud vitiates instrument – guardianship (Guardian Petition No.
DisposedOpenSucheta Desmond Rodrigues, Mumbai vs the Bombay Presidency Golf Club Limited Mumbai and Ors.
Outcome: DisposedClub membership – dependent children – ward versus child – Bombay Presidency Golf Club – Bye-Laws and Articles of Association – misdeclaration in membership application form – estoppel – fraud vitiates instrument – guardianship (Guardian Petition No.
DisposedOpenSucheta Desmond Rodrigues, Mumbai vs the Bombay Presidency Golf Club Limited Mumbai and Ors.
Outcome: DisposedMembers' club — dependent membership — ward versus 'child'/'dependent child' — guardianship order — alleged misrepresentation/false declaration in membership form — estoppel — perverse contradictory findings — interpretation of club Bye-Laws/AOA — age-based dependency (21/marriage) — RTE Act s.2(g);
DisposedOpen
Related subjects
- Constitutional and Fundamental Rights21,58,139
- Matrimonial and Divorce2,58,011
- Writ and Judicial Review80,44,911