Laxmibai Chandaragi B & Anr. V. State of Karnataka & Ors.

 

 

Laxmibai Chandaragi B & Anr. V. State of Karnataka & Ors.

 

Citation:

AIRONLINE 2021 SC 47

Fact:

One Mr. Basappa Chandergi reported his daughter, Ms. Lakshmibai Chandaragi, Petitioner No. 1 as missing in the present case at Murgod Police Station, Savadatti Taluk of Belagavi District with effect from 14 October 2020.  In response to the complaint, a first information report of a missing person was registered and the investigating officer collected the statements of the parents and relatives of the missing person as well as their phone numbers.  After accessing the call details, it was clear that Petitioner No.1 was in touch withPetitioner No.2 Shri Santosh Singh Yadav.

 It should be noted that both the parties are well educated.  Petitioner No. 2 is MTech from NIT, Tiruchirappalli while Petitioner No. 1 is M.A.Ed.  Petitioner No. 2 got placement as Assistant Professor in Jain College of Engineering, Belagavi, Karnataka, while Petitioner No. 1 was Lecturer at Karnataka Lingayat Education Society Pre-University College, Bailhongal and in the duration of work they both fell in love with each other.

During investigation to trace Petitioner No. 1 it was revealed that she and Petitioner No. 2 travelled from Hubli to Bangalore and then from Bangalore to Delhi without informing their parents and got married to Petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No.1 disclosed the fact of her marriage by sending a marriage certificate to her parents via WhatsApp on 15 October 2020.

Convinced that a missing complaint had been registered, the Investigating Officer went to Ghaziabad where petitioner No. 1 lived and demanded that petitioner No. 1 appear at Murgod police Station to give a statement that he is married so that the case can be concluded.  This was followed by a letter written by Petitioner No. 1 to the Investigating Officer (IO), indicating that she was married to Petitioner No. 2 and she would be unable to visit the Police Station due to imminent danger from her family members., However, the IO refused to close the case.  In fact, the Investigating Officer told the petitioner no 1 that until she returns to Karnataka, they will register a kidnapping case against her husband i.e., petitioner no 2 on the request of her family members.

In the above circumstances, the petitioners filed the present petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, claiming that she was under dual jurisdiction as she lived with petitioner No. 2 in Uttar Pradesh, while she was from Karnataka.  The petitioners submitted that they were being threatened by the uncle of the petitioner No.1. He also sought protection from the Allahabad High Court, but the petition could not reach the board for urgent hearing even after pressing for almost a month.

Issue:

Whether the First Information Report should be quashed because both the parties had consented to the marriage of their own free will.

Judgement:

The Supreme Court ruled that the proceedings arising out of Murgod Police Station, Belagavi District, Karnataka, First Information Report were quashed. The court observed that the matter does not reflect very well on the police officers or the IO, the marriage certificate obtained by him and the conversation already held with Lakshmi, where she clearly stated that she was married to Santosh and she was afraid and scared to come to the police station. If the investigating officer could have gone to Santosh’s residence, he could have recorded Lakshmi’s statement instead of urging and calling the petitioners to come to the local police station in Karnataka.  Not only that, they undoubtedly sought to compel Lakshmi to come to the police station and record her statement on the apprehension of a false case being registered against her husband by her parents and consequent police action, which would result in her arrest.The Court also observed that both the parties are well educated.

Therefore, the FIR against the petitioner was ordered to be quashed and the present writ was disposed of with the expectation that the parents of the petitioner No. 1 voluntarily accede to her marriage and re-establish their relationship.

Conclusion:

The right to choose a life partner is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.  We also learn that an IO cannot compel someone to travel to a specific police station to record a statement, nor can the police threaten anyone with false charges as the Supreme Court exonerated have given.

In this instance, the Supreme court asked the IO and other police officers to not only compel a woman to record her statement at the police station, but also to threaten false cases to be filed with the police by her parents.She was also reprimanded for it, resulting in her husband’s imprisonment.  It sets a strong precedent for ongoing and future cases to be similar.

In bringing things closer and answering the question of whether family consent is required after two adults have decided to marry, the answer is no.  In any circumstance where two adults have voluntarily agreed to enter into marriage, there is no need for the approval of the clan, family or community.

Precedents:

·       Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, 2018

·       Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K M & Ors, 2018

·       K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017.