Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

“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