Questions Of Faith Have No Bearing On Individual's Freedom To Choose A Life Partner: Delhi High Court

Observing that the freedom of choice in marriage is an intrinsic part of Article 21, the Delhi High Court has said that the questions of faith have no bearing on the freedom to choose a life partner.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that in cases where couples are legally married out of their own free will and volition, the police is expected to act expeditiously and with sensitivity in accordance with law.

The court added that the police must take necessary measures for protection and safety of such couples if they apprehend hostility and concerns for their safety from others including their own family members.

"The freedom of choice in marriage in accordance with law is an intrinsic part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Even the questions of faith have no bearing on an individual's freedom to choose a life partner and are essence of personal liberty," the court said.

The court made the observations in its order on three bail pleas that had been filed by family members of a woman who had married against their wishes in December last year.

The FIR was registered under 356, 367, 368, 326, 307, 506, 120B and 34 of IPC on the statement of an injured man, who is the husband of the woman.

According to his complaint, the family members of his wife abducted the couple, thrashed and also amputated his private part with an axe. It was also alleged that stab injuries were inflicted and that the man was thereafter thrown in a drain from where his brother rescued him and admitted him in AIIMS Trauma Centre.

It is the prosecution's case that after solemnization of marriage, when the couple returned to Delhi, the wife's family members got infuriated and threatened to kill the husband. The husband then approached Police Station Rajouri Garden on December 22, 2021 in the evening and submitted an application for grant of protection. However, while the couple was returning from the Police Station, the wife's family members abducted them and took them to their house where they were beaten.

As per the prosecution, the wife's grandmother directed other family members to chop off the complainant's private part. It was alleged that the aunt and mother also exhorted the same. Thereafter, other family members present at the spot caught hold of the complainant where her wife's uncle assaulted him with an axe and amputated his private part.

In the High Court, bail pleas were moved by the wife's mother, grandmother and sister. The counsel representing the victim's mother-in-law argued that no specific role has been attributed to her by the complainant except for exhortation. The grandmother sought bail on the ground that she was an old lady aged 86 years and is suffering from various ailments. The sister said she was not named in the FIR.

The prosecution opposed the bail by submitting that the grandmother was a habitual offender and has been involved in about 42 criminal cases. It was also submitted that she exhorted the other family members for amputating the private part of the complainant.

Regarding the sister, the prosecution submitted while no overt act was attributed to her, however, no steps were taken by her for protecting the victims.

The court noted that no active role was attributed to the sister, however, both the mother and grandmother were alleged to have participated in assault and also exhorted family members for amputation of the private part of the complainant.

It also cannot be ignored that they have criminal antecedents and the mother in fact was declared as a proclaimed offender during the initial stages of the proceedings, it added.

"In the facts and circumstances, considering the grave nature of offence, ghastly manner in which the assault was made and considering their role in the incident, no grounds for bail are made out in respect of petitioner/accused Geeta and Kaushalya," the court said.

Accordingly, the court denied bail to the mother and grandmother of the wife whereas bail was granted to the sister since no active role was attributed to her.

Criticising the police role, the court said that it was unfortunate that necessary steps for ensuring the safety and security of the couple were not initiated by the SHO of Police Station Rajouri Garden on their complaint, "taking it in a routine course while they were expected to act with promptitude."

"The conduct of the concerned police officials in this regard is deprecable and needs to be looked into and necessary action taken. Any such lapse cannot be accepted on behalf of the police," the court said.

Accordingly, it ordered "A copy of this order be accordingly forwarded to Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police for taking necessary measures for sensitising the police officials in dealing with such complaints, under intimation to this Court, within a period of four weeks."

Title: NAINA RANA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) and other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1007

Click Here To Read/Download Order