Hadiya case: No court can annul marriage between two consenting adults, says SC

coastaldigest.com news network
February 22, 2018

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday, Feb 22, observed that no court can annul marriages between two consenting adults or resort to a “roving enquiry” on whether the married relationship between a man and woman is based on consent.

The Bench led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra defined the limits of the court's jurisdiction in Hadiya case.

“Can a court say a marriage is not genuine or whether the relationship is not genuine? Can a court say she [Hadiya] did not marry the right person? She came to us and told us that she married of her own accord,” Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed.

Ms. Hadiya, the 26-year-old Homeopathy student converted to Islam and subsequently married a Muslim man. The marriage was annulled by the Kerala High Court, which said it was “sham”. Her father, Asokan K.M., alleged that she was indoctrinated by a “well-oiled network” who is a front to recruit Indian citizens and traffick them abroad to strife-prone countries like Syria to work as “sex slaves”. However, Hadiya has repeatedly stated that her father had been telling blatant lies to separate her from her husband.

“She said on the telephone to her father that she wants to go to Syria to rear sheep. There may be fathers who receive such news with calm and fortitude, but this father was alarmed,” senior advocate Shyam Divan, for Mr. Asokan, addressed the Bench. Mr. Divan said his daughter is a victim of an “enormous trafficking exercise”.

Justice Chandrachud countered that if there was trafficking of citizens involved, the government had the power to stop it on the basis of credible information. If citizens are travelling abroad to be part of a manifest illegality, then too, the government has the authority to stop them.

“But in personal law, we cannot annul marriages because she did not marry the right person,” Justice Chandrachud told to Mr. Divan.

Chief Justice Misra said Ms. Hadiya's father may still view her as a child who was enticed or attracted by some kind of extraordinary situation. “But she is an adult,” Chief Justice Misra pointed out.

Chief Justice Misra said “What troubles us is there is a roving enquiry on the marriage of two consenting adults to find out whether was consent.”

The National Investigating Agency (NIA) had been probing the case and what they claim to be several other similar cases of “brainwashing”, radicalisation and indoctrination in Kerala. In the previous hearing, the court had told the NIA to stay away from prying into Ms. Hadiya's choice to marry Shafin Jahan.

But Mr. Divan said the Kerala High Court was “absolutely justified” in annulling the marriage, considering the particular circumstances of the case and the material before it that there was a network involved behind the conversion and marriage of Ms. Hadiya.

Countering Chief Justice Misra's observation that courts cannot intervene in a marriage between adults, Mr. Divan classified Ms. Hadiya as a “vulnerable adult” who still needs protection.

“This is a case exactly in which marriage is being used as a device to keep her [Hadiya] outside the reaches of the court,” Mr. Divan submitted.

In an intervention, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for Mr. Shafin Jahan, said Mr. Divan was being “unfair” to the court. Mr. Sibal denied that Ms. Hadiya said she wanted to go to Syria for sheep farming. Instead, it was her father, upset by her conversion to Islam and subsequent marriage, who told her that she would be trafficked to terrorist countries. The court scheduled the next hearing on March 8.

Comments

Based on SC ruling  on Wrong judgement for simple cases  by the High court shows incompetency of the judges.

The marriage of 2consented parties can not be annulled by the court, even if it is wrong religiously, still they have access to have court marriages.

Very pity High court judges commit simple mistakes. A layman would never do such errors.

 

Based on SC ruling  on Wrong judgement for simple cases  by the High court shows incompetency of the judges.

The marriage of 2consented parties can not be annulled by the court, even if it is wrong religiously, still they have access to have court marriages.

Very pity High court judges commit simple mistakes. A layman would never do such errors.

 

 

Mohammed
 - 
Thursday, 22 Feb 2018

They need life.. they need justice

Suresh Kalladka
 - 
Thursday, 22 Feb 2018

Her father is an insane i think. Father making all issues with help of some saffrons

Sandesh
 - 
Thursday, 22 Feb 2018

Why they didnt reveal they got married.. They covered that in court.. 

Mohan
 - 
Thursday, 22 Feb 2018

Court wasted much money and time for this. Let them live freely. They are not minor. They can take decisions

Rizwan
 - 
Thursday, 22 Feb 2018

Truth will prevail, and falsehood will perish.

Kumar
 - 
Thursday, 22 Feb 2018

Thank God.. SC stands for justice. 

Ganesh
 - 
Thursday, 22 Feb 2018

Media, Saffrons and SDPI people made Hadiya case worst. They dragged this to court, NIA.

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
May 19,2020

Bengaluru, May 19: Containment zones in Karnataka will be much smaller in size under the latest lockdown norms. However, rules and loopholes will be tightened and action against violators will be stringent in order to check the spread of the disease.

Revised guidelines issued by the Centre to the state, reveal containment zones are delineated based on mapping of cases and contacts. Intensive action will be carried out in these areas with the aim of breaking the chain of transmission. Therefore, the area of a containment zone should be appropriately defined by the district administration/local urban bodies with technical inputs at local level.

The health department is considering shrinking the size of containment zones from the existing 100 metres to open up more space for economic activities. Medical education minister K Sudhakar, also a member of the Covid taskforce, said additional chief secretary (health department) Javed Akthar will issue a new definition of a containment zone after the Covid-19 taskforce holds its next meeting.

“We are planning to further shrink it and restrict containment zones to an apartment complex, independent house or even a lane where the Covid-19 patient resides,” Sudhakar said. He went on to say bigger containment zones will impede businesses and normal activities in the vicinity, something which the government wants to avoid.

The minister said Karnataka will also do away with colour-coding districts. “With restrictions being relaxed for almost all activities, it does not make sense to pursue with colour codes. It is either containment zone or outside containment zone,” he said.

In rural areas, the minister said containment zones will be identified by the taluk heads. Government sources say it is difficult to restrict activities to certain areas or smaller location in rural areas as farmers and people will have to travel to the outskirts of their villages for their livelihood.

An official said, a containment operation (large outbreak or cluster) is deemed successful when no case is reported in 28 days from the containment zone.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
July 8,2020

Bengaluru, Jul 8: The expert committee constituted by the Karnataka government to look into imparting online education in the wake of the COVID-19 lockdown submitted its report on Tuesday to the Minister for Primary and Secondary Education, S Suresh Kumar.

Amid growing pressure by educational institutions to allow them to run online classes for the students, the government set up the committee headed by noted educationist M K Sridhar.

The Minister told reporters that some schools wanted to run online classes, including for LKG and UKG students. It had also come to the government's notice that schools were reportedly charging hefty fees in the name of online teaching, he added.

"To address the concerns of parents, schools, and the future of the children, the committee was formed,"Kumar said. He further said that the government would study the recommendations and hold discussions with officials and various stakeholders before arriving at a decision.

The Education Department said that the committee, in its report, titled "Continuation of Learning in School Education of Karnataka: Guidelines During COVID-19 Pandemic for Technology Enabled Education and Beyond", has recommended teaching online or by using printed material. The committee suggested that children in the age group of three to six be taught online by way of story-telling, rhymes and games strictly in the presence of parents thrice a week just for one session a day For students from class one to three, it advised two periods a day and three days a week for online teaching.

Students from class three to five would have classes five days a week and two classes for 30 minutes a day. For students from class six to eight, there could be three classes a day for a duration of 30 minutes to 45 minutes each, while for students of class nine and 10 there would be four sessions a day between 30 and 45 minutes each.

The committee also suggested usage of Doordarshan and Akashwani for the government school children. Suresh Kumar said there were a few petitions filed in the Karnataka High Court regarding online teaching to the children.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
January 14,2020

Bengaluru, Jan 14: A woman has sustained burns on the left hand and the left chest in a vicious acid attack that occurred as she walked home in Mallappa Layout, Seegehalli, near KR Puram in Bengaluru.

Prabhavathi, the victim, and her husband, Radhakrishna Reddy, own an acre and six guntas of land in Seegehalli. They had constructed 20 houses on the parcel and rented them while keeping the rest of the land empty and building a boundary wall around it, according to a senior police officer. 

Four men named Ravi, Kumar, Ashirvadam and Shekar laid claim to the land and demolished the boundary wall two years ago. When the couple approached the cops, Manjunath, a sub-inspector from KR Puram police station, visited the spot along with other officers and allegedly abused Reddy and his family. 

Reddy then approached a senior police officer who suggested that he file a complaint against the sub-inspector as well as his rivals for threatening the family. The case is pending in a case. 

On January 7, Ravi, along with four others — Raghu, Kabalan, Ashrivadam and Munireddy — mocked Prabhavathi as she walked home. They asked her to withdraw the complaint. When she ignored them, one of the men motioned to another person. In a flash, a man in the group threw acid on Prabhavathi. The liquid fell on her left hand and left chest, gashing them. Her screams drew her family who rushed her to a hospital. 

Reddy said the suspects had been intimidating them to sell the remaining land. He accused the KR Puram sub-inspector of “threatening” the family.

According to Reddy, following their complaint, a departmental enquiry was launched against the sub-inspector and his promotion was stalled. He suggested that the suspects had used the acid attack as a weapon to “silence” and force them into withdrawing the complaints. 

Following the acid attack, KR Puram police booked eight people — Ravi, Raghu, Kabalan, Ashirvadam, Munireddy, Sachin, Rahul, and Kumareshan — under IPC sections 326 (a) (acid attack) and 506 (criminal intimidation). Efforts are on to track them down. 

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.