Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

Personal Liberty in Valid Muslim Marriage: High Court Asserts Age of Majority 15 Years

05 September 2024 6:15 AM

By: Admin


Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a resounding affirmation of personal liberty and the validity of a Muslim marriage contracted by individuals above the age of puberty. The decision, handed down on December 13, 2023, by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA, has far-reaching implications for cases involving the protection of personal freedom and the competence of Muslim individuals to enter into marriages of their choice.

The case, CRWP-11190-2023, revolved around Shameem and Salma, both Muslims by religion. The petitioners, aged 23 and more than 16 years old, respectively, entered into a matrimonial bond against the wishes of their families, performing a Muslim marriage ceremony on November 8, 2023. Fearing for their life and liberty, the couple approached the High Court, seeking protection from potential threats posed by family members who disapproved of their union.

On the other side, the parents of Salma filed a separate petition, CRWP-11123-2023, requesting a writ of habeas corpus to produce their minor daughter Salma from the custody of Shameem. They argued that Salma was a minor and had been abducted, leading to the registration of an FIR for kidnapping.

The central legal question in the case was whether Salma's marriage, performed above the age of 15, was valid under Muslim Personal Law and whether the couple should be granted protection.

Justice Deepak Gupta's judgment highlighted the importance of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He stated, "The Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that the apprehension of the petitioners needs to be addressed. Merely because the petitioners have got married against the wishes of their family members, they cannot possibly be deprived of the fundamental rights as envisaged in the Constitution of India."

The court relied on legal precedents, emphasizing that in Muslim law, puberty and majority are considered the same, with a presumption that a person attains majority at the age of 15 years. Therefore, the marriage between the petitioners was deemed valid.

The verdict concluded by granting custody of Salma to her husband, Shameem, asserting that the parents' wishes were inconsequential in this case. The court also directed the official respondents to provide necessary protection to the married couple as required.

Date of Decision: December 13, 2023

Iqbal and Another VS State of Haryana and Others

Latest Legal News