FACTS OF THE CASE:
Petitioner No.1 (Laxmibai Chandaragi B) Apparently without informing her parents, had travelled by flight from Hubli to Bangalore and further from Bangalore to Delhi and married petitioner No.2 (Mr. Santosh Singh Yadav). The petitioner No.1 sent her marriage certificate to her parents through whatsapp on 15.10.2020 in which she revealed the factum of marriage to petitioner No.2. It is the case of the State that the Investigation officer proceeded to Ghaziabad to know the whereabouts of petitioner No.1 and on visiting the residence of petitioner No.2, was informed by his parents that they do not know the whereabouts of the petitioners. Mr. Basappa Chandaragi, Father of petitioner No. 1(Laxmibai Chandaragi B) lodged a complaint with the Murgod Police Station, Savadatti Taluk, Belagavi District stating that his daughter petitioner No.1 was missing since 14.10.2020. To pursue the complaint, First Information Report No.226/2020 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. The petitioner No.1 spoke to the investigating officer and informed that she had already married petitioner No.2 and was residing with him.
But the investigation officer did not consider the senstivity of the case and also contends that the petitioner No.1 should appear before the Murgod police station to record a statement so that the case can be closed. The petitioner No.1 sent a letter to the Investigation officer stating that she was married to petitioner No.2 and there was threat from her parents and thus, was unable to visit the police station. The case was still not closed as a missing person by the Investigation officer. Aggrieved by the irresponsibleness of the officer, the petitioners filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court.
ISSUES RAISED:
- Whether an unwarranted interference into the petitioners’ marriage by police personnel, based on a false complaint, constituted a violation of the petitioners’ right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution?
- Whether the consent of parents is required for marriage?
- Whether the consent of society is required for marriage?
- Whether an investigation officer shouldn’t understand the sensitivity of the case?
ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH THE SIDES:
- Contention on behalf of the petitioners: The attorney representing the petitioners contended that even though petitioner no. 1 sent a letter explaining why she was unable to visit the Murgod Police station and that she feared her parents, the investigating officer did not dismiss the case. He contended that the transcript of the conversation between Laxmibai and the police, which was provided to the court, showed that the Investigation officer had asked her to get to Karnataka as soon as possible because failing to do so would likely result in her family accusing her husband of kidnapping and jeopardising his employment.
He also contended that if she did not come to Karnataka, her family members would use the Investigation officer to file a case of stealing property from the house, which would be terrible for petitioner No. 2’s work. He made the court view that both the petitioners are highly learned and well-equipped people. The petitioner No.2 is an MTech from NIT, Tiruchirappalli, while petitionerNo.1-wife, is an M.A.Ed. The petitioner No.2 had got a placement as an Assistant Professor in Jain College of Engineering, Belagavi, Karnataka while the petitioner No.1 was a Lecturer in KLES (Karnataka Lingayat Education Society) Pre-University College, Bailhongal and it appears that they developed liking for each other during these assignments. Thus, he ended by saying that the parents of petitioner No.1 were not willing to have their daughter married to petitioner No. 2 while the parents of petitioner No. 2 had no objection.
- Contention on behalf of Respondent: The investigating officer filed an FIR, according to the learned counsel’s appeal, even though the parents of petitioner No. 1 were unable to locate their daughter. He claimed that Laxmibai was invited to the Murgod police station because the investigating officer wanted to wrap up the investigation. The claim that the investigating officer ever threatened the petitioner was refuted by the counsel.
JUDGEMENT AND RATIONALE OF THE CASE:
The case was not handled well by the police authorities. The Investigating officers already had a conversation with Laxmi and she clearly stated that she was married to Santosh and she was feeling threatened to go back to her hometown to give her statement in the police station. Investigating officer could easily record Laxmi’s statement rather than threatening or forcing her to file a false complaint against her husband. The apex court correctly stated that the younger generations who are educated are choosing their life partner which is against the old social norms where caste and religion played a crucial role and such educated youngsters are facing threat from their family members and the courts have been coming to the aid of these educated youngsters.
The cases which were referred by the court clearly stated that the individuals have right to choose their life partner under article 21 of the Indian Constitution and the approval of elders is of no importance if the two individuals have their free consent to enter into wedlock as the choice of an individual is a part of dignity. The way forward to the police authorities is to not only counsel the current Investigation officer but device a training programme to deal with such cases for the benefit of the police personnel. The Supreme Court expects the police authorities to take action on this behalf in the next eight weeks to lay down some guidelines and training programmes on how to handle such socially sensitive cases.
INFERENCE:
Right to choose a life partner is a fundamental right which is protected under article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This case tells us that if there is consent between two adults to get married then there is no need for approval of the family members. From this case we also get to know that no Investigating officer or any police authority can force us to give a statement in a specific police station. This is a commendable judgement. This brief judgement deals with an issue which in today’s scenario is faced by lot of youngsters and this judgement acts as a saviour for the youngsters or the one who choose their life partner without having the approval of the family
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.”
The writ is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with some hope for the future.
AUTHOR’s DETAILS:
Name: Anshita Tripathi
College: St.Andrew’s college