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
April 13,2020

Mangaluru, Apr 13: City Commissioner of police P S Harsha on Monday warned people, not to use drones illegally for filming or any other purposes.

Speaking with this regard Harsha said on Monday ,''“We have noticed that persons are illegally using drones to film Mangaluru city. If this continues, we will not only seize the drone but will also take firm legal action against the person responsible. Because Mangaluru is a sensitive place with lots of vital installations.''

He further requested the media houses also not to hire drone services for filming or any other purposes.

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 10,2020

Belagavi, Feb 10: In comments that raised eyebrows, Ramesh Jarkiholi, who quit the Congress and joined the BJP and who took oath as minister last week, said his brother Satish has a bright future. The two siblings have rarely seen eye-to-eye — at least in public — in recent times.

He also trained his gun on Congress leader DK Shivakumar, sarcastically thanking the Congress MLA for his meteoric rise. “Had Shivakumar not stood against me, I would not have emerged as a tall leader in the state. I must thank him,” Ramesh said.

The Gokak MLA said Satish of the Congress, the most politically-savvy of the five Jarkiholi siblings, would reach “the top” in his political career. However, he advised him “to inculcate patience and adopt strategies”. “He should make his moves at the right time as timing is very important in politics,” Ramesh said.

He also urged Satish to keep his supporters happy. “Many of his followers are disappointed with his leadership because he does not extend a helping hand to his own people. In the present political climate, people do not endorse a leader who only talks about Buddha and Basava,” Ramesh said.

Ramesh took a dig at Lakan, the youngest sibling, saying, “Lakan speaks ill about me most of the time. He does not understand much. But we brothers are one when it comes to family. We are united when it comes to family matters, but when it comes to politics, we are at loggerheads.”

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.
Agencies
February 8,2020

Mumbai, Feb 8: Anil Ambani, the brother of Asia’s richest man has pleaded poverty in his dispute with three Chinese banks seeking $680 million in defaulted loans.

“The value of my investments has collapsed,” Anil Ambani said, according to a court filing by the banks in a London lawsuit.

“The current value of my shareholdings is down to approximately $82.4m and my net worth is zero after taking into account my liabilities. In summary, I do not hold any meaningful assets which can be liquidated for the purposes of these proceedings.”

The lawsuit was filed by three state-controlled Chinese banks which argue that they provided a loan of $925 million to Ambani’s Reliance Communications Ltd. in 2012 with the condition that he personally guarantee the debt. The comments were disclosed on Friday as Ambani sought to avoid depositing hundreds of millions of dollars with the court ahead of a trial.

The embattled Indian tycoon says that while he agreed to give a non-binding “personal comfort letter,” he never gave a guarantee tied to his personal assets -- an “extraordinary potential personal liability.”

The 60-year-old is the brother of Mukesh Ambani, who’s worth $56.5 billion and is the wealthiest man in Asia. Anil, on the other hand, has seen his personal fortune dwindle over recent years, losing his billionaire status. His Reliance Communications filed for bankruptcy last year.

The banks asked Judge David Waksman to force Ambani to put up $656 million into the court’s account.

Representatives for Ambani’s Reliance Group said they couldn’t immediately comment. They said the group will issue a statement once the court issues the final order.

Ambani’s lawyer, Robert Howe, said the court shouldn’t order his client to make a payment he can’t make. The tycoon argues that an order requiring him to do so would hinder his ability to defend himself in the case, Howe said.

“There’s no evidence of some giant pot of gold that he can pull $1 million, let alone $10 million, let alone $100 million,” Howe said.

Bankim Thanki, an attorney representing Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd., China Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of China, said in a filing that Ambani’s statements are “plainly a yet further opportunistic attempt to evade his financial obligations to the lenders.”

Ambani was caught up in another legal wrangle last year when India’s Supreme Court threatened him with prison after Reliance Communications failed to pay Rs 5.5 billion ($77 million) to Ericsson AB’s Indian unit. The judges gave him a month to find the funds, and his brother, Mukesh, stepped in just in time to make the payment.

Anil said in a filing that he recognized that the judge would want to know if he could satisfy any order to put up funds from outside resources, including his family.

“I can confirm that I have made enquiries but I am unable to raise any finance from external sources,” he said. Judge Waksman had said in an earlier ruling that he believed Ambani’s defence would be shown to be “opportunistic and false.”

Ambani’s lawyer told the judge that as a result of the comments the tycoon’s relatives were unlikely to lend any funds.

There is a “very substantial risk they will never get it back,” Howe said.

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.