CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

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