Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

“Public Declaration Not Necessary for Valid Marriage”: Supreme Court Overrules Madras High Court’s Interpretation on Solemnization under Section 7A of Hindu Marriage Act

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India today delivered a landmark judgement, overruling the Madras High Court’s earlier decision that had made public declaration a necessity for solemnizing marriages under Section 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, presiding over the case, stated that imposing a requirement for a public declaration “is not only narrowing the otherwise wide import of the statute but also would be violative of the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

The case came into the spotlight when Ilavarasan filed a habeas corpus petition, alleging that his wife Mathithra was forcibly married to her maternal uncle and was restrained against her will. The Supreme Court directed the District Legal Services Authority to record Mathithra’s statement, which corroborated Ilavarasan’s claim.

The apex court took issue with the Madras High Court’s reliance on a previous decision and clarified the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act’s provisions. The court stressed that Section 7A merely required the intending spouses to declare their willingness to marry each other, and no public ceremony was needed.

The judgement further emphasized that due to various societal pressures, many couples may not be able to make a public declaration. “Doing so would imperil their lives or could in the very least likely result in danger to their bodily integrity or at worst, a forcible or coerced separation of one from the other,” said the Court.

The Supreme Court also reasserted that free will and choice in marriage are intrinsic parts of the right to life, as mentioned in previous judgments such as Lata Singh v. State of UP and Shafin Jahan v. Asokan KM.

The Court’s decision has been seen as a significant step towards safeguarding individual liberties and is expected to have far-reaching implications in how the law is applied and interpreted regarding personal freedoms and marriage in the country.

Date of Decision: 28 August 2023

ILAVARASAN vs THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE & ORS.   

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/28-Aug-2023_ILLAVARSAN_Vs_State.pdf"]

Latest Legal News