The Karnataka High Court while recognising the individual's right to choose their partners, also mentioned the immense pain parents suffers when their children elope.
The Division Bench of Justice B. Veerappa and Justice K.S. was adjudicating upon a writ petition habeas corpus filed by a father for custody of her 19 years old daughter who eloped with her partner.
The Court said she is at liberty to decide her future and choose her partner but at the same time, she should not be the reason for pain and agony suffered by her parents.
The petitioner when found out via the friends of his daughter that the respondent herein might have taken her, contacted through phone and failing to establish a communication went on looking for the residence. He was allegedly met with threats from repondent herein when he enquired about his daughter and thereafter lodged complaint for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC.
When the couple was called to Police Station, the father was not permitted to speak to her and she went back with the respondent.
The case of the petitioner was that her daughter suffering from severe depression and not in a fit state of mind to decide things by herself. He contended that there is a strong apprehension that she might have been forced into marriage with respondent against her will.
When Court enquired the daughter, she categorically denied being mentally ill and the contents of the doctor certificate. She submitted that she never went to the doctor and she is in “sound state of mind and physically fit” and she never suffered from any ill-health as alleged in the writ petition.
The Court noted that the pain of the parents who brought up Nisarga and educated her with all struggles in their life couldn't be ignored but reiterating the promises made by the husband that both of them will lead a happy married life focusing on their studies as well, it stated that the parents also should understand that their children are supreme asset of the nation.
Talking about mutual affection, the Court said that the parents should create a good atmosphere in the family by their love and affection to regain the confidence of the children and the children should also understand the fact that without their parents, they would not have been on the earth and would not have enjoyed the educational prospects including job, wealth and other luxuries and it is only the parents’ contribution.
Not denying her rights as an adult, the Court was of the view that the petitioner's daughter should have thought of her studies and informed the parents about her love with respondent and ought to have tried to convince her parents with regard to her marriage.
"The peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case clearly depicts that “love is blind and more powerful weapon than the love and affection of the parents, family members and the society at large", the Court said.
Quoting from ancient writtings, the Court said that there is no greater god than Parents and that no person can repay his parents even in 100 years for all the troubles that they go through to give birth to him/her and raise him/her to adulthood.
"Therefore, always try to do whatever pleases your parents and your teacher, because only then does any religious worship done by you will bear some fruit.", the Court remarked.
It aslo stressed on the need to give more attention to the care and protection for the elder persons.
The Court further threw light on 'Right to Choice' as enshrined in the Constitution.
"The right to marry a person is one’s choice is integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees the right to life. This right cannot be taken away except through a law which is substantively and procedurally fair, just and reasonable. Intrinsic to the liberty which the Constitution guarantees as a fundamental right is the ability of each individual to take decisions on matters central to the pursuit of happiness. Matters of belief and faith, including whether to believe are at the core of constitutional liberty."
The decision of the suitability of partners to a marital tie rests exclusively with the individuals themselves and neither the State or Society can intrude into that domain, the Court said.
"The Courts, as upholders of constitutional freedom must safeguard their freedom. Courts are duty bound not to swerve the path of upholding our pluralism and diversity as a Nation."
The petition was dimissed with conclusion that the daughter is not in an illegal custody but residing with her partner with free will.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
