Introduction

Summary

This case deals with the right to choose your life partner as a fundamental right under article 21 of the India Constitution. Article 21 of the Indian constitution states that no person shall be deprived of personal life and liberty except according to the law procedure.

The Petitioners in this case approached Allahabad High Court where their matter was not taken up and then they approached the Supreme Court of India under article 32 of the Indian Constitution. Article 32 of the Indian constitution provide constitutional remedies to the citizens and non-citizens of India to file a case directly in supreme court if there is any violation of their fundamental rights.

Background of the case

In this case the petitioner no. 1, Ms. Laxmibai Chandaragi went missing from her home on 14th October 2020. Her Father filed a First Information Report (FIR) that she was missing. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of parents and relatives. During the investigation, the call records of missing woman revealed about a man named Mr. Santosh Singh Yadav, petitioner no. 2. Both man and women married and on 15th October 2020 the women send her marriage certificate to her parents through WhatsApp.

The Investigating Officer travelled to Ghaziabad, where the parents of the man live. On visiting the parents, they said that they were unaware of the whereabouts of the couple. On establishing the contact with the women, the Investigating officer asked the women to give her statement in Murgod Police Station which was in her hometown. The women refused to return back to Karnataka because of the fear of her parents. 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.

The couple approached the Allahabad High Court on 19th October 2020, but their matter was not taken up even after requesting that the matter should be listed in urgent hearing list. At last, the couple approached the Supreme Court of India.

Facts in Issue

Whether the FIR should be quashed as both the parties married on their own will and with consent.

Ratio Decidendi

“… 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.”

“The choice of an individual is an inextricable part of dignity, for dignity cannot be thought of where there is erosion of choice. Such a right or choice is not is not expected to succumb to the concept of “class honour” or “group thinking.”

“Educated younger boys and girls are 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.”[1]

Other related Cases referred if any

  • In Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K M & Ors.[2] and Lata Singh v. State of U.P.[3] , the court noticed that the society was emerging through crucial transformation.
  • In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India[4], the personal matrimonial affairs of the individuals are covered under the right to privacy under article 21.
  • In Shakti Vahini v. Union of India[5], it was held that the consent of the family members is not necessary once the consent of the two individuals who are getting married is there and their consent has to be piously given primacy.
  • In Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar[6], it was observed that the choice of an individual is an inextricable part of dignity and such choice can’t be succumbed under “class honour” or “group thinking”.

Judgement

“Insofar as the present case is concerned, 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 No.226/2020 dated 15.10.2020 registered at Murgod Police Station, Belagavi District, Karnataka are quashed with the hope that the parents of petitioner No.1 will have a better sense to accept the marriage and re-establish social interaction not only with petitioner No.1 but even with petitioner No.2. That, in our view, is the only way forward.”[7]

The Supreme court ruled that the procedures arising from FIR were annulled.

The Supreme Court directed that the Investigating officer must be sent for counselling as to how to manage these types of cases.

Observations/Analysis

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 home town to give her statement in the police station. Investigating officer could easily record Laxmi’s statement rather than threatening or forcing her about filing 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.

Conclusion

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 of 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 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.

[1] https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/02/12/educated-adults-choosing-their-life-partners-is-the-way-forward-to-reduce-caste-and-community-tensions-sc-comes-to-the-aid-of-a-young-couple-facing-threats-from-the-elders/.

[2] Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K M & Ors. (2018) 16 SCC 408

[3] Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 475

[4] K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.

[5] Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192.

[6] Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar (2017) 4 SCC 397.

[7] https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/25061/25061_2020_39_31_25989_Judgement_08-Feb-2021.pdf.


About the Author: This Case Brief is prepared by Akshma Gupta, law student at University of Petroleum & Energy Studies. He can be reached at akshmagupta8@gmail.com

MyLawman is now on Telegram (t.me/mylawman) Follow us for regular legal updates. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter or join our whats app group .You can also subscribe for our Newsletter for Email Updates. 

 For More Case Briefs, Click Here