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

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