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
February 5,2020

Chennai, Feb 5: In order to ensure housing for all, the Madras High Court has proposed ban on non-resident Indians from purchasing houses in India, prohibit speculative sale, and impose 100 per cent extra stamp duty on purchase of second house.

The court on its own impleaded the Union housing and finance ministries as party respondents.

It has directed them to answer a series of questions including as to how many families have basic amenity of housing in India as well as in Tamil Nadu, population and housing ratio in the country and in the state, when 'Housing for All' mission of the central government would be achieved.

"Why the government does not consider imposing such restrictions to control escalation of house prices and to provide a house to every family in the country, a division bench of Justice N Kirubakaran and Justice Abdul Quddhose wondered.

Directing the authorities to inform as to whether the central and state have got special schemes to provide housing for the marginalized and economically weaker sections including SC/ST communities, the bench has also sought the details of the number of families that possess more than one house.

"Why the governments do not restrict families/individuals from purchasing/possessing more than one housing unit/flat/plot till "Housing for all" is achieved?

Why not the government charge 100 per cent more or extra stamp duty to discourage buying more than one house by a family while purchasing second house?

Why not the government conditionally allow the families to purchase more than one house provided the said family pays 100 per cent extra statutory dues like property tax, electricity charges, water and sewerage charges on the second property?" the bench said.

This apart, the court also wanted the authorities to know as to why it should not prohibit the NRIs from purchasing houses in India to bring down the cost of housing.

Justifying its directions, the court said "Lakhs and lakhs of people are living on platforms, roads, and cement pipes, slums, under the trees and on banks of water bodies without proper shelter and basic amenities and safety."

It is true that the Centre had taken a policy decision to provide housing unit to every family.

It should be achieved at the earliest, the court said, adding it could become fruitful when restrictions are put on persons who hold more than one housing units.

The court passed the order while hearing an appeal moved by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board challenging a single judge order against acquisition of about 369 acres of private land in Thudiyalur and Vellakinar areas of Coimbatore for a housing scheme.

Comments

Suresh SS
 - 
Wednesday, 5 Feb 2020

We believed that only Indian Govt. ministers, MP and MLAs has this disease, now it is spreading everywhere even Indian High courts. it is certainly very harmful virus  

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.
Agencies
February 4,2020

Lucknow, Feb 4: Even as anti-NRC protests continue to rage across the country, the Lucknow University has queered the pitch by demanding citizenship proof from RTI applicants.

The Lucknow University (LU) refused to provide the information sought by the people who filed the Right to Information (RTI) unless they furnished the proof that they were Indian citizens.

Alok Chantia, one of the RTI applicants who was refused information by the varsity, said that he had lodged a complaint with the vice-chancellor of the varsity but even then he could not get the desired information.

"It is shocking how the university has twisted the RTI law as per its whims and fancy. It does not have any authority to do so," said the RTI applicant.

Chantia, also a faculty member at a degree college here, had sought details of appointment of teachers for self-financed courses and their pay scale.

"It is possible that some applicants who may not be familiar with the provisions of the RTI, may have furnished proof of their citizenship to the varsity to get the information but that cannot become a rule," he pointed out.

When contacted, university officials admitted that such a practice had been going on in the varsity for the past few years.

"This practice started during the tenure of the former vice-chancellor S.P. Singh and still continues," said a senior varsity official.

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 2,2020

Kolkata, Feb 2: A protester at Park Circus, known as Shaheen Bagh of Kolkata, died last night after she fell ill during her agitation against CAA, NRC and NPR.

The woman has been identified as Sameeda Khatun (57) who was a resident of Entally area of the city. According to protesters, Khatun who was asthmatic patient died after suffering a cardiac arrest. She is survived by husband and eight children.

Around 250 women from Kolkata have been holding a peaceful sit-in at Park Circus Maidan since January 7 to protest against CAA, NRC and NPR and demanding the withdrawal of the new citizenship law.

Research Scholar at Rabindra Bharati University, Nousheen Baba Khan who has been spearheading the Park Circus protest since the beginning, told the newspaper, “Sameeda Khatun was a regular face at the protest and she was not well as she had asthma.

Last evening she came to me complaining that she is having trouble in breathing. We immediately took her to Chittaranjan Hospital where doctors said she had suffered a cardiac arrest. We later took her to Islamia Hospital where doctors declared her brought dead,” said Khan.

Comments

ABDULAZIZ
 - 
Monday, 3 Feb 2020

Inna Lillahi wa in ilaihi rajivoon.    

 

Subhaan Allah,   she died for the cause .May Allah Almighty accept her shahada . and bless her with Jannatul Firdous .   Aameen

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.