LAXMIBAI CHANDARAGI& ANR. versus THE STATE OF KARNATKA & ORS. on 8 February 2021

1. We have heard learned counsel for parties.

2. One Mr. Basappa Chandaragi lodged a complaint with theMurgod Police Station, Savadatti Taluk, Belagavi District stating that hisdaughter Ms. Laxmibai Chandaragi, petitioner No.1 herein was missingDsince 14.10.2020. In pursuance to the complaint, FIR No.226/2020 of amissing person was registered and the investigation officer recorded thestatement of the missing person’s parents and her relatives and took calldetails. From the call details, it became apparent that the petitioner No.1was in contact with Mr. Santosh Singh Yadav, petitioner No.2. In theEcourse of investigation it was found that the petitioner No.1, apparentlywithout informing her parents, had travelled by flight from Hubli toBangalore and further from Bangalore to Delhi and thereafter marriedpetitioner No.2. The petitioner No.1 sent her marriage certificate to herparents through whatsapp on 15.10.2020 in which she revealed thefactum of marriage to petitioner No.2. It is the case of the State that theFIO proceeded to Ghaziabad to know the whereabouts of petitioner No.1and on visiting the residence of petitioner No.2, was informed by hisparents that they do not know the whereabouts of the petitioners.However, the petitioner No.1 spoke to the investigating officer andinformed that she had already married petitioner No.2 and was residingGwith him. But the IO instead insisted that the petitioner No.1 shouldappear before the Murgod police station to record a statement so thatthe case can be closed. The petitioner No.1 sent a letter to the IO statingthat she was married to petitioner No.2 and there was threat from herparents and thus, was unable to visit the police station. The case wasstill not closed of missing person by the IO.H

3. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, that the present petitionhas been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India since accordingto the petitioner there is an issue of duality of jurisdiction arising fromher residing with petitioner No.2 in the State of Uttar Pradesh while thepetitioner No.1 came from Karnataka. It is the case of the petitionersthat the uncle of petitioner No.1 was threatening them. On the petitionersapproaching the Allahabad High Court on 19.10.2020, seeking protectionfor themselves and the family members, the matter could not be takenupon even after about a period of one month for urgent hearing.

4. The petitioners have annexed a transcript of the conversationbetween petitioner No.1 and the police whereby the IO is asking her tocome back to Karnataka as otherwise they will come to her and registera case of kidnapping against petitioner No.2 at the behest of her familymembers.

5. We have gone through the translation of the transcript at pageD to page H originally in Kannada, now translated in English in whichthe petitioner No.1 expressed the feeling of lack of safety. Though theIO stated that they would like to close the case, they wanted her to gether statement recorded at the police station. The IO also stated that thefamily members may file a case against her that she has stolen thingsfrom the home and if an FIR is filed, there would be a negative markagainst petitioner No.2 and they would have to arrest him which wouldbe problematic for his job also.

6. The aforesaid does not tally with what is stated in the counteraffidavit to the extent that the investigation officer had at no pointthreatened the petitioners.

7. The aforesaid does not reflect very well on the police authoritiesor the IO, the marriage certificate having been received by him and theconversation already been held with petitioner No.1 where she clearlystated that she was married to petitioner No.2 and that she was feelingthreatened and apprehensive of coming to the police station. If the IOcould have visited the residence of petitioner No.2, he could very wellhave recorded the statement of petitioner No.1 at the place where thepetitioners were residing rather than insisting and calling upon thepetitioners to come to the local police station at Karnataka. Not onlythat, he undoubtedly sought to compel the petitioner No.1 to come andrecord the statement at police station on the threat of possibility of a A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Afalse case being registered by her parents against the petitioner No.2and the consequent action of the police which would result in the arrestof petitioner No.2. We strongly deprecate the conduct of the IO in adoptingthese tactics and the officer must be sent for counseling as to how tomanage such cases.

B

B8. Both the parties are well educated. The petitioner No.2 is anM.Tech from NIT, Tiruchirapalli, while petitioner No.1-wife, is anM.A.B.Ed. The petitioner No.2 had got a placement as an AssistantProfessor in Jain College of Engineering, Belagavi, Karnataka while thepetitioner No.1 was a Lecturer in KLES (Karnataka Lingayat EducationCSociety) Pre-University College, Bailhongal and it appears that theydeveloped liking for each other during these assignments. However, therewas resistance from the parents of petitioner No.1, though the parentsof petitioner No.2 were willing for the matrimony of both the well qualifiedpetitioners who are majors and Hindu by religion.

D9. Educated younger boys and girls are choosing their life partnerswhich, in turn is a departure from the earlier norms of society wherecaste and community play a major role. Possibly, this is the way forwardwhere caste and community tensions will reduce by such inter marriagebut in the meantime these youngsters face threats from the elders andthe Courts have been coming to the aid of these youngsters.

E

10. We are fortified in our view by earlier judicial pronouncementsof this Court clearly elucidating that the consent of the family or thecommunity or the clan is not necessary once the two adult individualsagree to enter into a wedlock and that their consent has to be piouslygiven primacy.[1] It is in that context it was further observed that theFchoice of an individual is an inextricable part of dignity, for dignity cannotbe thought of where there is erosion of choice. Such a right or choice isnot is not expected to succumb to the concept of “class honour” or“group thinking.”[2]

11. In Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K M & Ors.[3], this Court noticedGthat the society was emerging through a crucial transformational period.[4]

1 Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192

2 Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar (2017) 4 SCC 397

3 (2018) 16 SCC 408

H4 Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 475

Intimacies of marriage lie within a core zone of privacy, which is inviolableand even matters of faith would have the least effect on them. The rightto marry a person of choice was held to be integral Article 21 of theConstitution of India. In this behalf, the judgment of the nine JudgesBench in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India[5] may also bereferred to where the autonomy of an individual inter alia in relation tofamily and marriage were held to be integral to the dignity of the individual.

12. The intervention of this Court would really not have beenrequired in the given facts of the case if the IO had conducted himselfmore responsibly in closing the complaint and if he really wanted torecord the statement of the petitioner No.1, should have informed thathe would visit her and recorded the statement instead of putting herunder threat of action against petitioner No.2 to come to the police station.

13. The way forward to the police authorities is to not only counselthe current IOs but device a training programme to deal with such casesfor the benefit of the police personnel. We expect the police authoritiesto take action in this behalf in the next eight weeks to lay down someguidelines and training programmes how to handle such socially sensitivecases.

14. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the petitioners havingfiled the present petition, no further statement is really required to berecorded and thus, the proceedings in pursuance to the FIR No.226/2020 dated 15.10.2020 registered at Murgod Police Station, BelagaviDistrict, Karnataka are quashed with the hope that the parents ofpetitioner No.1 will have a better sense to accept the marriage and re-establish social interaction not only with petitioner No.1 but even withpetitioner No.2. That, in our view, is the only way forward. Under thegarb of caste and community to alienate the child and the son-in-law willhardly be a desirable social exercise. In the words of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar“Annihilation of Caste:

“I am convinced that the real remedy is inter-marriage. Fusion ofblood can alone create the feeling of being kith and kin, and unlessthis feeling of kinship, of being kindred, becomes paramount, theseparatist feeling—the feeling of being aliens—created by Castewill not vanish. Where society is already well-knit by other ties, A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

524SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Amarriage is an ordinary incident of life. But where society is cutasunder, marriage as a binding force becomes a matter of urgentnecessity. The real remedy for breaking caste is inter-marriage.Nothing else will serve as the solvent of caste.”

15. The writ is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with some hopeBfor the future!

Divya Pandey

Petition disposed of.

C

D

E

F

G

H