Introduction
Marriage is considered as a scarcement of soul and lives. Among Hindus, marriage is a sacramental union of two people. Marriage is considered as a union by laying down that even death cannot put marriage asunder. A man is considered to be incomplete without his wife and it is the wife who completes him. Under Hindu law, a wife is considered as not just patni but dharmapatni i.e., partner in performance of spiritual as well as secular duties. In earlier times, marriage would be conducted when both the families of both the parties agreed but now in recent times it is not necessary that the families of both the parties agree to marriage.
FACTS
The petitioner in this case, Ms. Laxmibai Chandaragi, disappeared from her home on October 14, 2020. A First Information Report (FIR) was filed by her father after she went missing. The investigating officer took notes throughout the parents’ and relatives’ interviews. In the call logs of the missing woman the investigators found, Santosh Singh Yadav, petitioner number 2, was mentioned. The woman married the man, and on October 15, 2020, she used WhatsApp to send her parents a copy of her marriage licence.
Petitioner No. 2’s parents lived in Ghaziabad, therefore the investigating officer went there. When the parents were contacted, they adamantly stated that they had no idea where the Mr. Santosh was. The investigating officer contacted the Laximibai and requested that her to provide a statement at the nearby Murgod Police Station. Out of fear for her parents, she steadfastly declined to go back to Karnataka. The Investigating Officer refused to close the case and threatened the couple of registering a false case of kidnapping against the man and a case on women of theft in her house, so that she can return back to home.
On October 19, 2020, the couple came before the Allahabad High Court, but their request to have their case added to the list of urgent sessions was denied. The couple eventually took the case to the Supreme Court of India.
ISSUES RAISED
- Is it necessary for the families of the parties to agree for marriage?
- Does Article 21 of the Indian Constitution cover right to choose one’s partner?
- Can the consent of both the parties to marry overturn the filling of the First Information Report?
- Can the investigating officer impel someone to come to a specific police station for recording statement?
CONTENTION
This case travelled from the Allahabad High Court to Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.
The arguments presented by the appellate side are: –
- The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that even after sending letter for not visiting the police station and stating that the petitioner had been constantly receiving threats from the family, the case was not closed.
- It was further argued in the transcript submitted before the court of law, it was identified that the investigating officer asked Laximibai to visit the Murgod police station for recording the statement and said that if she failed to do so a false case would be filed by the family against Mr. Santosh which will surely affect him.
- Petitioner made the court of law to view that both the parties are well-educated and are highly equipped people. Mr. Santosh is MTech from NIT, Tiruchirappalli and Laximibai is M.A.Ed. Mr. Santosh got placement in Jain College of Engineer as an assistant professor whereas Laximibai is a lecturer in Karnataka Lingayat Education Society Pre-University College.
- The argument of the petitioner was ended on the argument that the family of Laximibai is against their marriage while the family of Mr. Santosh had no objection.
The arguments presented by the defendant side are: –
- The learned counsel humbly submitted that since the parents of Laximibai were unable to find them so an FIR was lodged by the investigating officer.
- It was further submitted that since the investigating officer wanted to close the case he called Laximibai to record her statement.
- It was opposed by the learned counsel that the investigating officer threatened the petitioner.
The judgement given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was that the court of law ruled in favor of the couple. The court quashed the FIR filed by the parents and held that the rights to choose one’s life partner is covered under the extended view of Article 21 which talks about right to life and personal liberty. It also held that the right to choose one’s life partner should be given primacy over parental consent, society norms and caste considerations. It was also stated that the steps taken by the investigating officer was wrong as Laximibai had clearly given a written statement as she was unable to go to the police station.
RATIONALE
The court of law took reference from the case laws mentioned below:-
Shakti Vahini V. Union of India[1], in this case it was decided that once two adults give their consent for marriage it will prevail over the consent of their families, community. In this case, the court of law laid down that it is illegal for the Khap Panchayat to punish two consenting people from marrying.
Asha Jain V. State of Bihar[2], it was observed that the choice of an individual is inseparable part and such a choice cannot be surrendered under class honour or society thinking.
Shafin Jahan V. Asokan K M & Others.[3], it was observed by the court of law that society was emerging a great transformation. The same was observed in Lata Singh V. State of U.P[4].
In K.S. Puttaswamy V. Union of India[5], a landmark case, it was observed that the right of a person to choose one’s life partner is covered under the extended view of Article 21. It was ruled that “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.”
DEFECTS OF LAW
The way the investigation was handled reflected poorly on the IO or the entire police force. Laximibai claimed that she was afraid to go to the police station because she felt frightened by the conduct of her family. She had presented her marriage certificate which clearly showed that she was married to Mr. Santosh. The Honorable Supreme Court censured the investigating officer and directed him to receive ‘counselling’ so he might be prepared for probable future occurrences of similar circumstances. This establishes a high standard for other IOs handling similar circumstances and demonstrates the Court’s criticism of the way investigations are carried out.
The marriage of the two capable petitioners, who are Hindus and majors, was opposed by the parents of Laximibai, whereas parents of Mr. Santosh had no objection concerning the marriage. This demonstrates that if the petitioners have a strong education, they are more likely to be conscious of their actions and certain of their love for one another. The inability of Laximibai’s parents to accept her husband is nothing new which we see but it needs to be amended as everyone has the right to choose one’s life partner.
INFERENCE
The judgment given in this case is best for cases with similar situations where children are dominated by their parent from marrying person of their choice and instead forcing them to marry person chose by the parents. Even now most of the parents force their children to marry person of their choice and do not consider the choice of their children. They are either forced to marry in early age or when they come to know about their children’s choice they force them by giving threats or by blackmailing them to marry the person who is chosen by the parents. If they have already made up their minds to marry that person, they are forced to do it while the child is still very young or as soon as the parents learn of their wish. People are expected to abide by social standards and make decisions since to do otherwise puts them at danger of being rejected or excluded.
After the judgement given by this case, the right to choose one’s partner and marry them became a part of the extended view of Article 21 that is right to life and personal liberty as living a life on your own terms is a part of right to life.
After this case, it was also discovered that the police misuse the power given to them by the government as seen in this case where Laximibai was threatened to give her official statement in the police station. The power given to police officers is for the helping the citizens and not for using it for their own benefit.
The judgment given in this was appreciable as now also most of the people face the same condition where they are forced to marry the person of their parent’s choice or if they marry the person of their own choice they face a lot of criticism from the society and even their own parents.
Shrishti Saxena
Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
[1] Shakti Vahini V. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 192
[2] Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar, (2017), AIR 2017 SC 1079, 2017(2) SCALE 709
[3] Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K M & Ors ,(2018) 7 SCC 192
[4] Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 475
[5] K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, AIR 2017 SC 4161