Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to marry whomever one chooses - SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Apex court observed that There's a chance that such inter-caste marriages will reduce tensions between castes and communities in the future, but for now, these young people face threats from their elders, and the courts have stepped in to help them.

Petitioner's father filed a missing person's report after learning that his daughter (Petitioner No. 1) had ran away from home without telling her parents and had married petitioner No. 2, who then told IO of her marriage. For the sake of closing the case, IO demanded to go to the police station and give a statement. Petitioner No. 1 wrote to the IO explaining that she was married to Petitioner No. 2 and that her parents had threatened her, thus she was unable to go to the police station to file a report. Petitioner No.2 was threatened by IO and told to return to Karnataka or else a kidnapping case will be filed against him.

Petitioners approached the Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

A transcript of the conversation between petitioner No.1 and the IO, in which the IO threatened her to return to Karnataka because otherwise they would come to her and register a case of kidnapping against petitioner No.2, produced in court.

Apex court expressed displeasure and stated that IO unquestionably attempted to compel petitioner No. 1 to appear at the police station and give a statement about the possibility that her parents would file a false complaint against petitioner No. 2 and that the police would then take action to arrest petitioner No. 2 as a result. These tactics are strongly deprecated by the IO, and the officer should be sent for counselling on how to handle such situations.

When it comes to choosing a life partner, educated young men and women are defying traditional social norms that rely heavily on caste and community to make the right decisions.

Hon’ble court clearly stated that Once two adults agree to marry, the consent of their families, communities, or clans is not required, and their consent must be given paramount importance. The right to marry a person of choice was held to be integral Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Apex court while issuing the directions stated that ,With this in mind, authorities should not only counsel current IOs, but also devise training programs for police officers to handle such situations. Police authorities will act in this regard within the next eight weeks to establish some guidelines and training programs on how to handle cases of this socially sensitive nature cases. And quashed the FIR against petitioner No.2

February 8, 2021. 

LAXMIBAI CHANDARAGI B & ANR.    VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.   

Latest Legal News