Gujarat High Court
Narmadaben Jagdishkumar ... vs Hingu Rupeshkumar Bhailalbhai on 29 April, 2022
Bench: Mauna M. Bhatt
R/SCR.A/4444/2022 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4444 of 2022
==========================================================
NARMADABEN JAGDISHKUMAR PRAJAPATI
Versus
HINGU RUPESHKUMAR BHAILALBHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK H DAVE(6295) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 29/04/2022
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI)
1. The petitioner is a mother who is not in a position to
reconcile with the fact that her daughter can get married
without intimating the mother. The marriage certificate is also
a part of a record. She has married on 28.03.2022 and has got
herself registered under the Gujarat Registration of Marriage
Act, 2006 on the next day i.e. on 29.03.2022. She has also
giver her affidavit stating that out of her own volition she has
chosen to marry Hingu Rupeshkumar Bhailalbhai and she is
left home without taking any kind of cash, other belongings or
the ornaments. It is not being disputed by the petitioner that
she has left home without any of these things however, it is
R/SCR.A/4444/2022 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2022
her disbelief that the daughter can get married without
intimating her which has resulted into filing of this petition.
She is a matured girl entitled to marry the person of her
choice being already 23 years of age. She has also sent her
marriage certificate and affidavit which unequivocally speaks
of her volition.
2. There is no reason to entertain this petition. The Khadia
Police Station is even otherwise approached by the petitioner.
The Police Inspector, in charge of the Khadia Police Station
can be requested to ensure the meeting of the daughter
through video conference. If she found, she can be also
ensured as directed by this Court in Special Criminal
Application No. 6845/2021.
3. The decision of Laxmibai Chandaragi B. and Anr. vs.
State of Karnataka and Others, reported in (2021) 3 SCC
360 shall be also needed to be reproduced where the Apex
Court has held thus:-
"10. Educated younger boys and girls are choosing
their life partners which, in turn is a departure from
the earlier norms of society where caste and
community play a major role. Possibly, this is the
way forward where caste and community tensions
will reduce by such inter marriage but in the
meantime these youngsters face threats from the
elders and the Courts have been coming to the aid of
these youngsters.
R/SCR.A/4444/2022 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2022
11. We are fortified in our view by earlier judicial
pronouncements of this Court clearly elucidating
that the consent of the family or the community or
the clan is not necessary once the two adult
individuals agree to enter into a wedlock and that
their consent has to be piously given primacy. It is in
that context it was further observed that the choice
of an individual is an inextricable part of dignity, for
dignity cannot be thought of where there is erosion
of choice. Such a right or choice is not expected to
succumb to the concept of "class honour" or "group
thinking.
12. In Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K M & Ors. , this Court
noticed that the society was emerging through a
crucial transformational period. Intimacies of
marriage lie within a core zone of privacy, which is
inviolable and even matters of faith would have the
least effect on them. The right to marry a person of
choice was held to be integral Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. In this behalf, the judgment of
the nine Judges Bench in Justice 1 Shakti Vahini v.
Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192 2 Asha Ranjan v.
State of Bihar (2017) 4 SCC 397 3 (2018) 16 SCC
408 4 Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 475
K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India5 may also be
referred to where the autonomy of an individual inter
alia in relation to family and marriage were held to
be integral to the dignity of the individual."
4. With the above observation, this petition stands disposed
of. Copy of this order be given to learned APP for onward
communication.
(SONIA GOKANI, J)
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
Bhoomi
