Yes. The translation is correct.
Let's see the original sanskrit, along with two different translators texts.
त्रिंशद्वर्षो वहेत् कन्यां हृद्यां द्वादशवार्षिकीम् ।
त्र्यष्टवर्षोऽष्टवर्षां वा धर्मे सीदति सत्वरः ॥ ९४ ॥
- A man thirty years old shall marry a charming maiden twelve years old; or one twenty four years old, a damsel eight years old; in the
event of his duties suffering, he may do it sooner.
(English Translation by Ganganath Jha)
- A man, aged thirty years, shall marry a maiden of twelve who pleases him, or a man of twenty-four a girl eight years of age; if
(the performance of) his duties would (otherwise) be impeded, (he must
(English Translation by George Bühler)
However, it might be helpful to read this with the Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
What the injunction means is that the maiden married should be so much
younger than the man;—and not that marriage must be done only at. the
age stated. Nor is any stress meant to be laid upon the exact number
of years mentioned; all that is meant is that one should many a girl
very much younger than himself.
This injunction does not occur in the section dealing with Marriage;
hence, what is stated here cannot he regarded as a qualification of
the persons undergoing that sacrament, and consequently, as an
essential factor in the rite itself; for this same reason, it cannot
be taken as precluding the age of ‘ten’ or ‘twenty-five’ or such
“But it is often found that even though laid down in a distinct
passage, a detail does form an essential factor of an act”
True; but the very fact that the teacher has thought it fit to place
the present text apart from the section on marriage is clearly
indicative of the fact that he had some special purpose in this.
The practice of cultured men is also as we have stated.
Further, the age here stated can never be observed in the case of
one’s son marrying a second time; so that, if the injunction were
meant to be taken literally, it would mean that there should be no
second marriage; and this would be absurd.—(94)
- So according to Medhātithi’s interpretation of the above verse, it states the girl must be sufficiently younger compared to the male, the rule is not hard and fast, in regards to having the same age numbers as mentioned in the translation.
Similar verses are found in the other texts too, as added by Ganganath Jha in his comparative notes -
Comparative notes by various authors:-
Mahābhārata (13.41.14).—‘One who
is thirty or twenty-one years old shall take a wife sixteen years old,
but before she has attained puberty.’
Viṣṇupurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 766).—‘A man shall select a
wife whose age is one-third of his own.’
Āpastamba (Do., p. 767).—‘A man thirty-years old shall take a wife ten
years old, before she has attained puberty; and one twenty-one years
old, a girl seven years old.’
Āśvalāyana (Do.).—‘A maiden seven years old is called Śaiśavī; a man
eighteen years of age shall marry her; a maiden eight years old is
called Gaurī, conducive to richness of sons and grandsons; and she
shall be married by a man twenty-five years old; a girl nine years old
is called Rohiṇī conducive to richness of wealth; a wise man shall wed
her for the accomplishment of all his desires; a girl over ten years
age, until she has her courses, is called Gāndhārī; and she shall be
married by a man desirous of living long.’
So, as per scriptures, it is valid to marry as prescribed, for that is the dharma.
Usually, the couple will have conjugal rights after the girl menarches and not before that.