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
January 14,2020

Jan 14: A day after it moved the Supreme Court against the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the Kerala government on Tuesday said it would continue its fight against the legislation as it "destroys" the secularism and democracy in the country.

The CPI(M)-led government had on Monday moved the apex court challenging the CAA and sought to declare it as 'ultra vires' of the Constitution. State Industries Minister E P Jayarajan told reporters here that the state has moved the apex court and will explore all options to fight the Act.

"The state government will to go to any extent and continue its fight against CAA. This Act destroys democracy in the country. This will only help in implementing the RSS agenda, to drive the nation through a fascist regime, and destroying the secularism and democracy in the country. The RSS and the Sangh Parivar cannot implement this law just by using muscle power," Jayarajan said.

Tourism Minister Kadakampally Surendran tweeted that the state became the first in the country to approach the top court against the Act. "Kerala government files lawsuit against the unconstitutional CAA. Kerala becomes the first state in the country to go to the Supreme Court against CAA.

"Kerala leads the way," he said in the tweet. In a suit filed in the apex court, the Kerala government has sought to declare that the CAA 2019 was "violative" of Article 14 (Equality before law), 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) and 25 (Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion) of the Constitution.

It also claimed that the law was violative of the basic principle of secularism enshrined in it. The state Assembly had on December 31, 2019, passed a unanimous resolution against the CAA and became the first state to do it.

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
June 20,2020

Bengaluru, Jun 20: Amid calls for boycott of Chinese products in the backdrop of Indo-China border face-off, former Karnataka chief minister HD Kumaraswamy sought to know from the BJP government in Karnataka the status of the "Compete with China" policy brought during the previous JDS-Congress rule.

Boycotting Chinese products was not easy like sloganeering but required a creative policy and the coalition government's initiative was a model for it, he said in a series of tweets.

"After the border skirmish, some people got the realisation to boycott the Chinese products but during my tenure (as chief minister) a serious thought was given to it," the JDS leader said.

He was apparently referring to growing clamour for boycott of China-made products after a violent clash between Indian and Chinese troops in the Galwan Valley in Ladakh left 20 Indian Army personnel dead early this week.

Mr Kumaraswamy said he had brought the Compete With China policy to effectively deal with the neighbouring country.

"My government's objective was to offer jobs to the local residents, snatch away market opportunities for China and discard the Chinese products."

"However, what has the present government done to our scheme? It is not known whether it is still continuing or not," Mr Kumaraswamy said.

The Kumarswamy government had identified clusters and earmarked Rs 2,000 crore for their development.

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
February 11,2020

Thiruvananthapuram, Feb 11: In a unique form of protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), a bridegroom in Kerala, Haja Hussain, came for his wedding ceremony riding on a camel holding an anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) poster in his hands, on the outskirts of the capital city on Monday.

Accompanied by a large crowd mostly comprising his friends and relatives, Hussain carried a placard which read "Reject CAA, Boycott NRC and NPR" as he arrived at the wedding hall in Vazhimukku, about 20 km from Thiruvananthapuram, on a camel back.

Haja Hussain said that he chose to do this to express his protest against the CAA.

"Along with the ' mahr' (the custom where the groom hands over gold or money to the bride), I also gave a copy of the Constitution. CAA should be rejected," said Haja Hussain, who is a local businessman.

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.