Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

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

Similar News