Introduction
As we all know, in India, marriages are frequently decided when both the bride’s and groom’s families agree. However, in the twenty-first century, it is not uncommon for families to object to a marriage. Is the marriage null and void or illegal if the pair continues to marry? Is it necessary to have the family of the pair marrying each other’s consent?
Facts:
On the 14th of October 2020, Mr. Basappa Chandaragi reported his daughter, Ms. Laxmibai Chandaragi, Petitioner No. 1 in this case, missing to the Murgod Police Station in Savadatti Taluk, Belagavi District. In response to the complaint, a missing person’s First Information Report was filed, and the Investigating Officer obtained statements from the missing person’s parents and relatives, as well as their phone numbers. Petitioner No. 1 was conversing with Petitioner No. 2 Mr. Santosh Singh Yadav, according to the call data.
Petitioner No. 2 is an M.Tech graduate of NIT Tiruchirapalli, while Petitioner No. 1 is an M.A.B.Ed. Graduate. Petitioner No. 1 has been hired as a Lecturer at the Karnataka Lingayat Education Society Pre-University College in Bailhongal, while Petitioner No. 2 has been hired as an Assistant Professor at the Jain College of Engineering in Belagavi, Karnataka. Both were educated. They met at work and fell in love.
During the search for Petitioner No. 1, it was revealed that she and Petitioner No. 2 had driven from Hubli to Bangalore, then through Bangalore to Delhi, without informing her parents, and had married Petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No.1 informed her parents of her marriage on October 15, 2020, by sending them a marriage certificate via WhatsApp.
The Investigating Officer travelled to Ghaziabad after receiving a missing person report and requested that Petitioner No. 1 come at the Murgod police station to give a statement declaring that she was married so that the case may be closed. Petitioner No. 1 then wrote a letter to the Investigating Officer (IO), stating that she was married to Petitioner No. 2 and that she would be unable to visit the police station owing to an immediate danger from her family. The IO, on the other hand, refused to close the case. The Investigating Officer informed Petitioner No. 1 that unless she returned to Karnataka, a kidnapping case would be filed against her husband, Petitioner No. 2.
Issue raised:
If both parties freely agreed to marry, should the First Information Report be overturned?
Contention:
The Petitioners filed their petition with the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, claiming that she was subject to dual jurisdiction because she lived in Uttar Pradesh with Petitioner No. 2, although being a Karnataka resident. Petitioners stated that Petitioner No. 1, their uncle, was threatening them. They also sought protection from the Allahabad High Court, but the petition was unable to reach the board despite a month of demands for an instant hearing.
Court’s view on the Investigating Officer’s approach
The Supreme Court voiced its dissatisfaction with the IO’s conduct of the investigation. It was contended that if the IO had gone to Petitioner No. 2’s house, he could have recorded Petitioner No. 1’s statement there rather than urging and calling on the petitioners to come to the local Karnataka police station, the investigation would have been delayed. The Apex Court also harshly criticised the IO’s threat to file bogus charges against the Petitioner’s spouse if she did not come to Karnataka to give her statement. The Bench stated that if the IO performed his duties properly, it would not be required to intervene. As a result, it was suggested that IO be counselled and that training programmes for police personnel to handle similar cases be devised.
The Supreme Court noted that today’s educated younger boys and girls choose their life partners, which is a departure from past societal standards in which caste and community had a large role in determining such things and to which one must adapt.
Where can a statement can be taken?
According to the Court, Petitioner No. 1’s marriage certificate and her conversation with the IO, in which she stated that she is not missing but is living with her husband and expressed concern for her safety in returning to her hometown to record her statement, clearly demonstrated the issue’s truth. Rather than imposing pressure by requiring them to accompany the officer to the designated police station, the officer can take the statement wherever the subject feels safe and secure.
Rationale
Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, 2018
The Apex Court referenced the case of Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, 2018, in which the Apex Court decided that once two adult adults choose to marry, their consent must take precedence over that of their families, communities, or clans. Once a person’s fundamental right is instilled in them, intolerant groups that belong to the superiority complex or higher clan can no longer suffocate that right by depending on any type of moral or social theory or self-proclaimed elevation.”[1]
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K M & Ors, 2018
As it did in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K M & Ors, 2018, this Court emphasized that our society is in the middle of a critical transformation period. Marriage’s intimacies are encased in an impenetrable zone of privacy, where even religious considerations have no bearing. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution established that everyone has the right to marry the person of their choice.[2]
K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017, the Bench held clearly that the Right to Privacy, which is now a basic right under Article 21, covers any person’s matrimonial matters. Article 21 guarantees the freedom to choose one’s life partner, which is the most intimate of all the rights that make up personal liberty. The Court stated that marital intimacies are protected by an inviolable core of privacy, and that even religious factors have the least impact on them. As a result, the freedom to marry a person of one’s choice is regarded to be included in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.[3]
Final Order
As a result, the Petitioner’s FIR was thrown out, and the present writ was dismissed in the hopes that Petitioner No. 1’s parents would accept her marriage and re-establish their relationship.
Judgment
The Supreme Court deemed the processes arising from the Murgod Police Station, Belagavi District, Karnataka, First Information Report, invalid.
Defects of Law
The way the investigation was handled reflected poorly on the police department in general and the IO in particular. Petitioner No. 1 presented her marriage certificate, which clearly showed that she was married to Petitioner No. 2, and that she was hesitant to come to the police station because she felt threatened by her family’s behaviour. The Hon’ble Supreme Court chastised the Investigating Officer and ordered that he receive counselling to learn how to deal with similar situations in the future. This sets a high bar for other IOs handling similar matters, demonstrating the Court’s critical views on how investigations are conducted.
The parents of Petitioner No. 1 were opposed to the marriage, but the parents of Petitioner No. 2 were in favour of both the well-qualified petitioners, who are majors and Hindus. This shows that being educated enhances the chances that both petitioners are aware of what they are doing and are not doubting their love for one another. Petitioner No. 1’s family’s inability to accept the person their daughter married serves as the sole backdrop, which is nothing new in today’s world.
Younger educated boys and girls selecting their life partners is a departure from traditional societal practises in which caste and community played a significant role, but it is also a step forward in reducing caste and community tensions, as the Apex Court correctly noted. These kids, on the other hand, are terrified of their elders, and the courts have stepped in to assist them. This also shows parents and children that marrying someone is not illegal or void as long as both parties consent and want to marry.
The Supreme Court correctly stated, citing and relying on judicial precedents, that two mature individuals may choose to marry without their family, community, or clan’s consent, and that their consent must take precedence.
Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar, 2017
The case of Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar, 2017, was also mentioned, which stated that a person’s dignity is inextricably linked to their decision, and that dignity cannot be envisaged without choice. The concepts of ‘class honour’ and ‘group thinking’ are unlikely to give way to such liberty.[4]
Marriage’s intimacies are encased in an impenetrable zone of privacy, where even religious considerations have no bearing. Article 21 of India’s Constitution guarantees the freedom to marry the person of one’s choice.
Individual autonomy, especially in areas of family and marriage, is equally vital to an individual’s dignity, according to the Court. The Supreme Court also expressed its hope that Petitioner No. 1’s parents would see reason and recognise the marriage, allowing both petitioners to resume social activities. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar remarked in “Annihilation of Caste” that alienating the child and son-in-law under the pretence of caste and community would not be a desirable social practise.
Inference
Article 21 of India’s Constitution guarantees the right to choose a life partner. We also learn that an IO cannot compel someone to go a specific police station to record a statement, as the Supreme Court has ruled, and that police officers cannot intimidate someone with false claims.
The Supreme Court admonished the IO and other police officers in this case for not only compelling a lady to record her statements at a police station, but also for threatening her with a bogus case that her parents could file with the police, resulting in her husband’s arrest. This establishes a firm precedent that will be followed in similar instances in the future.
The family members’ consent is required after two people agree to marry is no. When two people willingly choose to marry, there is no need for clan, family, or community approval in any situation.
[1] Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K M & Ors ,(2018) 7 SCC 192
[2]Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K M & Ors, (2018) 16 SCC 368, AIR 2018 SC 1933
[3] K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, AIR 2017 SC 4161
[4] Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar, (2017), AIR 2017 SC 1079, 2017(2) SCALE 709
Name: Anjali Tiwari
Institute Name: Chandigarh University
Year of Study: LLB (1st Year), February 2022