The Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising of a bench of Justice Vivek Singh on Friday (19th February) while underscoring that women have the right to choose their spouse and lead their lives as they please observed that denying a person right to choose spouse based on caste is violative of fundamental rights.(Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh).
Suppressing or oppressing freedom of an individual, that too which is contrary not only to his/her spiritual and religious rights but also constitutional rights, is to be deprecated, the Court said.
The Bench was hearing a petition related to the marriage of an upper-caste woman (Rajput) with a lower caste man.
Facts of the case
The petition was filed by one Sanjeev Kumar (petitioner) to get the production/custody of his partner, Komal Parmar who has been detained by her family members against her wishes, so as to prevent solemnization of their marriage.
It was informed that the family members of Komal were opposing the marriage and threatening the couple, along with the Petitioner's family because Kumar was from a lower-caste background and Komal was from the upper-caste (Thakur) family.
Thus, the petitioner prayed for the production of Ms. Komal Parmar also for direction to respondents-State to provide appropriate security to the petitioner and his family members as there is an imminent threat to their lives and property.
In furtherance of the Court's Order, Komal Parmar was produced before the Court and the Court ascertained her wishes, wherein, she endorsed the incident of abduction and treatment given to her thereafter, by her family members, relatives, and villagers.
Contention of the parties
It was contended by the petitioner that after submitting the marriage application on February 1, the couple decided to live-together and took temporary shelter at Palampur.
Later, when the family members of Komal started threatening the couple, they were compelled to come back to their home town after which Komal was 'detained' by her family. Later, within the consent of the court, she was sent to Nari Niketan.
Furthermore, the Police Report which was submitted before the court disclosed that the father of Komal had produced an OPD Slip February 3, 2021, scribed by Mental Health Specialist and he also contended that Komal had not married anyone and was not in a condition to make a statement."
The respondents contended that Parmar was not under any illegal confinement or detention. It was submitted that though "there have been changes in social and moral values and our society is recognizing freedom of every citizen, but even then such liberties cannot be stretched beyond limits nor can such freedom be made a weapon to destroy our fundamental values and social establishments like families."
Parmar rebutted the arguments concerning her mental health stating that the opposition for marriage from her family was due to the difference in caste and rest submissions by her father were nothing but an attempt to defer the solemnization of marriage by hook or crook.
Court's Observation and judgment
After perusing the facts of the case, the courtobserved: “We are living in a State governed by the Constitution and discrimination on the basis of caste by denying of right to choose spouse, is in violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India”.
Recognising the independence of thought as a fundamental feature of Indian culture, the bench said, “So far as opposition to marriage for difference of caste is concerned, the same is result of spiritual as well as religious ignorance leading to behaviour in violation of constitutional mandate, despite the fact that Constitution is an embodiment of ancient values of Bhartiya Society. It is a basic spiritual as well as religious mandate of all religions that God is everywhere, in everyone and everyone is equal before God. Not only this, it is also considered that existence of God is not only in living creatures but is also in non-living things and, thus, no one is to be discriminated on account of sex, caste, creed, race, colour or financial status.”
The court then referred to the ancient Indian texts to elucidate the ills of discrimination. He said, “Vedas propound a principle of equality and betterment of all without any discrimination by pronouncing that we should work together, eat together, march together and live together for betterment and progress of all. Discrimination on the basis of caste, under the garb of religion, is antithesis of basic spiritual and religious principles which are, unfortunately, relied upon for discrimination. Therefore, discrimination on the basis of caste is not only in violation of constitutional mandate but also in opposition to real Dharma.”
On the right to marry and freedom to choose as an adult, the court cited some examples of ancient Indian scriptures referring to the marriages of Sati and Lord Shiva, Rukmini and Lord Krishna and Subhadra and Arjun. The Single-judge Bench said, “Oldest example of marrying a person of choice is the marriage of Sati with Lord Shiva, which was solemnized in defiance and against the wishes of her father King Daksha Prajapati. Another more than 5,000 years old example of choosing the spouse according to the choice of the girl is of Rukmani and Lord Krishna, as Rukmani was having liking and wish to marry Lord Krishna, whereas her brother was intending to arrange her marriage with Shishupal, whereupon Rukmani had wrote a letter to Lord Krishna to take and accept her as his spouse and Lord Krishna did so by taking her from the Mandapa. Similar example is the marriage of Subhadra and Arjun, where family members were intending to marry Subhadra somewhere else, whereas Subhadra had chosen Arjun as her spouse.”
Emphasizing on the fact that women have been placed higher socially ever since the Vedic era, Justice Singh remarked, “Unlike the ancient western thought, wherein a female was supposed to be created by God from the rib of a man for enjoyment of man, in India, a female was always considered not only equal but on higher pedestal than male since the Vedic Era, except for the evils of Medieval Period, which are necessary to be eradicated in present era.”
As the woman was an adult, the court held that she was capable of making her own decisions and was entitled to the right recognized by the Constitution to lead her life exactly as she pleases. The Court then, directed the Superintendent of Police Shimla and Hamirpur, SHOs Sadar (Shimla), District Shimla and Nadaun, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh to depute Police Personnel to escort her from the Court premises to the destination she desires to go.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
