A division bench of Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Hrishikesh Roy, has held in the case of Laxmibai Chandaragi B & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 359/2020] delivered on February 8, 2021, that the consent of the family or the community or the clan is not necessary once two adult individuals agree to enter into a wedlock. It was furthe observed that such a right or choice to marry is not expected to succumb to the concept of “class honour” or “group thinking”. The Apex Court also said that the police authorities shall formulate guidelines and training programmes on how to handle ‘socially sensitive cases’.
Brief Facts
One Mr. Basappa Chandaragi lodged a complaint with Police that his daughter Ms. Laxmibai Chandaragi, was missing since 14.10.2020. In pursuance to the complaint, FIR of a missing person was registered and the investigation officer recorded the statement of the missing person’s parents and her relatives and took call details. From the call details, it became apparent that the petitioner No.1 was in contact with Mr. Santosh Singh Yadav, petitioner No.2.
In the course of investigation it was found that the petitioner No.1, apparently without informing her parents, had travelled by flight from Hubli to Bangalore and further from Bangalore to Delhi and thereafter married petitioner No.2. The petitioner No.1 sent her marriage certificate to her parents through whatsapp in which she revealed the factum of marriage to petitioner No.2.
It is in the aforesaid circumstances, that the present petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India since according to the petitioner there is an issue of duality of jurisdiction arising from her residing with petitioner No.2 in the State of Uttar Pradesh while the petitioner No.1 came from Karnataka.
Case of the Petitioner
It is the case of the petitioners that the uncle of petitioner No.1 was threatening them. On the petitioners approaching the Allahabad High Court on 19.10.2020, seeking protection for themselves and the family members, the matter could not be taken upon even after about a period of one month for urgent hearing.
The petitioners have annexed a transcript of the conversation between petitioner No.1 and the police whereby the IO is asking her to come back to Karnataka as otherwise they will come to her and register a case of kidnapping against petitioner No.2 at the behest of her family members.
Though the IO stated that they would like to close the case, they wanted her to get her statement recorded at the police station. The IO also stated that the family members may file a case against her that she has stolen things from the home and if an FIR is filed, there would be a negative mark against petitioner No.2 and they would have to arrest him which would be problematic for his job also.
"The aforesaid does not reflect very well on the police authorities or the IO, the marriage certificate having been received by him and the conversation already been held with petitioner No.1 where she clearly stated that she was married to petitioner No.2 and that she was feeling threatened and apprehensive of coming to the police station. If the IO could have visited the residence of petitioner No.2, he could very well have recorded the statement of petitioner No.1 at the place where the petitioners were residing rather than insisting and calling upon the petitioners to come to the local police station at Karnataka. Not only that, he undoubtedly sought to compel the petitioner No.1 to come and record the statement at police station on the threat of possibility of a false case being registered by her parents against the petitioner No.2 and the consequent action of the police which would result in the arrest of petitioner No.2. We strongly deprecate the conduct of the IO in adopting these tactics and the officer must be sent for counseling as to how to manage such cases.”
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
Both the parties are well educated. However, there was resistance from the parents of petitioner No.1, though the parents of petitioner No.2 were willing for the matrimony of both the well qualified petitioners who are majors and Hindu by religion.
Educated younger boys and girls, the Court observed, were 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.
“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 [Shakti vahini v. Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192]. 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.
Insofar as the present case was concerned, the Court held that the petitioners having filed the present petition, no further statement is really required to be recorded and thus, the proceedings in pursuance to the FIR dated 15.10.2020 was directed to be quashed.
The Court further noted that under the garb of caste and community to alienate the child and the son-in-law will hardly be a desirable social exercise. In the words of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar:
“Annihilation of Caste:
“I am convinced that the real remedy is inter-marriage. Fusion of blood can alone create the feeling of being kith and kin, and unless this feeling of kinship, of being kindred, becomes paramount, the separatist feeling—the feeling of being aliens—created by Caste will not vanish. Where society is already well-knit by other ties, marriage is an ordinary incident of life. But where society is cut asunder, marriage as a binding force becomes a matter of urgent necessity. The real remedy for breaking caste is inter-marriage. Nothing else will serve as the solvent of caste.”
Held
“The writ is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with some hope for the future!”
Case Details
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Hrishikesh Roy
Name: Laxmibai Chandaragi B & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 359/2020
Date of Decision: February 8, 2021
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
