Condemning family resistance to an adult woman’s decision to marry a person of her choice, the Allahabad high court termed such objections ‘despicable’ and underscored that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is protected under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India.
While making these observations, a division bench comprising justices JJ Munir and Praveen Kumar Giri provided protection to a 27-year-old woman, who feared abduction by her father and brother because she wanted to marry a person of her choice.
The bench was hearing a petition filed by the woman’s father and brother, who sought the quashing of the FIR lodged against them under sections 140(3), 62, and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) at the Chilh police station in Mirzapur district.
Though the court stayed the arrest of the petitioners in connection with the FIR, it also restrained them from interfering in the woman’s life or from assaulting, threatening or contacting her or the man she intends to marry or live with.
“The petitioners shall not contact the fourth respondent (woman) over telephone or any other electronic device or using the internet or through friends or associates. It is despicable that the petitioners should object to the decision of an adult member of the family, a woman 27 years of age, from marrying a man of her choice. At least that is the right which every adult has under the Constitution by virtue of Article 21,” the court said in an order dated June 13.
{{/usCountry}}“The petitioners shall not contact the fourth respondent (woman) over telephone or any other electronic device or using the internet or through friends or associates. It is despicable that the petitioners should object to the decision of an adult member of the family, a woman 27 years of age, from marrying a man of her choice. At least that is the right which every adult has under the Constitution by virtue of Article 21,” the court said in an order dated June 13.
{{/usCountry}}While the court clarified that it did not know whether the petitioners, the woman’s father and brother, “really intend to abduct” her, it noted that the matter reflected a larger societal issue -- the ‘value gap’ between constitutional and social norms.
“The fact that there is social and familial resistance to the exercise of such right is a glaring depiction of the ‘value gap’ between the constitutional and social norms. So long as there is a gap between the values fostered by the Constitution and those cherished by the society, these kinds of incidents would continue to happen,” the court said.
“The police are also restrained from interfering with the fourth respondent’s freedom and liberty in any manner whatsoever,” the court added.