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.
The kidnapped schoolboy was rescued by the police and reunited with his parents. Son of a gift shop owner from Basavanagudi area in Bengaluru, Chirag has reportedly told police that decided to make some quick money to spend on cricket betting and gambling after learning kidnap tricks from the ‘Crime Patrol’. According to police, Chirag reached a private school around 3pm on Tuesday on a Bounce rental bike and zeroed in on a fourth standard student who was walking out of school. He told the boy he was his father's friend and that he required help to search for a relative who had gone missing. The boy believed Chirag and rode pillion on the bike. Chirag then engaged the boy in conversation and learnt about his father's business and got his mobile phone number. He then made a call to the boy's father, demanded Rs 5 lakh and warned him against approaching cops. However, the boy's father alerted Cottonpet police and special teams were formed to crack the case. While Cottonpet inspector Venkatesh TC's squad verified CCTV footage in and around the school, Chamarajpet inspector BG Kumaraswamy's team started tracking the suspect's mobile phone movements. An hour later, the suspect's location was traced to a hotel on the Lavelle Road-St Mark's Road stretch. Police rushed there, rescued the boy and arrested Chirag.
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.
They need life.. they need justice
Her father is an insane i think. Father making all issues with help of some saffrons
Why they didnt reveal they got married.. They covered that in court..
Court wasted much money and time for this. Let them live freely. They are not minor. They can take decisions
Truth will prevail, and falsehood will perish.
Thank God.. SC stands for justice.
Media, Saffrons and SDPI people made Hadiya case worst. They dragged this to court, NIA.
Add new comment