Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Forced Marriage Lacks Legal Sanctity: Patna High Court Annuls Marriage in Landmark Ruling

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that emphasizes the importance of consent in marital relationships, the Patna High Court, comprising Honourable Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Honourable Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha, has set aside a judgment of the Family Court, thereby annulling a marriage on the grounds of it being conducted under duress and without free consent.

The case, Ravi Kant Vs. Bandana Kumari (Miscellaneous Appeal No.248 of 2020), centered around the appellant, Ravi Kant, who contested that his marriage to Bandana Kumari was conducted at gunpoint, thus lacking his free consent, an essential element for a valid marriage under Hindu law. The Family Court’s earlier decision to dismiss his petition for annulment was overturned by the High Court.

In their judgment, the High Court observed, “Marriage solemnized under threat and coercion impacts the very essence of matrimonial union.” This observation underscored the court’s stance on the sanctity of free will in the institution of marriage.

The High Court meticulously reviewed the evidence and testimonies presented, noting significant discrepancies and lack of corroborative evidence from the respondent’s side. The judges pointed out that the Family Court had failed to frame necessary issues and prepare a decree, which was a procedural lapse affecting the case’s outcome.

Furthermore, the High Court referred to the Full Bench decision of the High Court in Sunita Kumari vs. Prem Kumar with Braj Kishore Singh vs. the State of Bihar & Anr., to clarify the nature of appeals under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. This reference played a crucial role in treating the appeal as a Miscellaneous Appeal.

In their conclusive statement, the High Court remarked, “A marriage devoid of free will and choice denies dignity and respect, fundamental to matrimonial harmony.” This strong statement reinforced the court’s decision to annul the marriage, offering a precedent on the importance of consent in marriage.

Legal experts view this judgment as a reinforcement of individual rights and dignity within the framework of matrimonial laws. The case was argued by notable advocates from both sides, with Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma leading the appellant’s legal team and Mr. Shashank Shekhar representing the respondent.

This ruling is expected to have significant implications in cases involving forced marriages, highlighting the judiciary’s commitment to upholding individual autonomy and rights in marital relationships.

Date of Decision: November 10, 2023

Ravi Kant VS Bandana Kumari

Latest Legal News