Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

“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