Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Zatoon Bibi & Anr. vs State Of J&K; And Other on 13 December, 2018
Author: Sanjay Kumar Gupta
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
OWP No.2548/2018 & IA No.01/2018
Date of order: 13.12.2018
Zatoon Bibi & anr. Vs State of J&K and others
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Judge
Appearing counsel:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohd. Shaqir Hussain, Advocate.
For respondent (s) : Mr. Raman Sharma, Dy. AG.
i) Whether to be reported in
Digest/Journal : Yes/No.
ii) Whether approved for reporting
in Press/Media : Yes/No.
1. The case of the petitioners is that they are educated and mature enough to
decide their fate. They know each other since long, fell in love and being
capable of understanding their well being, executed a marriage
agreement on 10.08.2018 which is duly attested by Public Notary and
subsequently solemnized the Nikah at Jama Masjid Sarwal, Jammu under
Mohammaden Law against the wishes of their respective family
members. Photo-copies of Marriage Agreement and Nikahnama are
annexed with the instant petition as Annexures-A & B respectively.
2. It is stated in the petition that the petitioners were major at the time of
solemnization of their marriage. This marriage was against the wishes of
their respective families, but later-on the family members of petitioner
No.2 had given their blessings to newly wedded couple and accepted the
marriage, but respondent Nos.3 & 4 are still against the said marriage.
After solemnization of marriage, both petitioners are living together but
due to persisting threat from respondent Nos.3 & 4, petitioners are living
under threat.
OWP No.2548/2018 Page 1 of 5
3. It is further stated that respondent Nos.3 & 4 have approached
respondent No.2 for lodging FIR against petitioner No.2 but the
concerned police despite knowing that petitioners have solemnized the
marriage and living together, is adamant to lodge the FIR against
petitioner No.2. It is stated that petitioner No.2 is serving in the Army
and any sort of criminal action would lead to serious consequences over
his service. After the solemnization of the marriage between the
petitioners, respondent Nos.3 & 4 have made the lives of the petitioners
miserable as both of them had married against the wishes of respondent
Nos.3 & 4. The marriage between the petitioners is not acceptable to
them. The petitioners are innocent and have solemnized the marriage
with their own choice. The movements of the petitioners have been
restricted in view of the continuous harassment and threat perception at
the hands of respondent Nos.3 & 4 as they have threatened petitioner
No.2 and his family members either to snap the relation with petitioner
No.2 or to face the dire consequences. The petitioners are innocent and
have contracted the marriage with their own choice and aggrieved of the
unnecessary threats and harassment made by respondent Nos.3 & 4.
4. They have proceeded to state that their movement has been restricted due
to the continuous harassment meted out to them at the hands of the
respondent Nos.3 & 4. They have also stated that the threat perception
looms large on their heads, as the respondent Nos.3 & 4 have threatened
petitioner No.2 and his family members either to snap the relation with
petitioner No.2 or to face the dire consequences.
5. The petitioners, in person, appeared before this court at the time of
hearing of the petition along with their counsel. They have categorically
stated in the open Court that they have solemnized marriage with each
other and have also executed Marriage Agreement on 10.08.2018 with
their own free will and consent, and without any force from anybody.
OWP No.2548/2018 Page 2 of 5
6. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioners, has
stated that the petitioners would be satisfied, if this petition is disposed of
at this stage by directing official respondents to provide adequate
protection to the petitioners from the harassment at the hands of
respondent Nos.3 & 4.
7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners.
8. From the perusal of petition, it is evident that this petition has been
supported by an affidavit. There are photo-copies of Aadhar Card issued
by Govt. of India wherein date of birth of petitioner No.1 is shown as
11.04.1994, whereas date of birth of petitioner No.2 is reflected as
05.04.1995. Marriage has been solemnized on 10.08.2018 as is evident
from Annexures-A & B. So petitioners were major at the time of
solemnization of marriage.
9. In similar circumstances where parties had entered into wedlock of their
own free will and volition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Singh v.
State of UP and anr, AIR 2006 SC 2522 has held as under:
"14. This case reveals a shocking state of affairs. There is no dispute that
the petitioner is a major and was at all relevant times a major. Hence she
is free to marry anyone she likes or live with anyone she likes. There is no
bar to an inter-caste marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act or any
other law. Hence, we cannot see what offence was committed by the
petitioner, her husband or her husband's
relatives...........................................
..............................................................
17. The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when we have to be united to face the challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence, inter-caste marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying the caste system. However, disturbing news are coming from several parts of the country that young men and women who undergo inter-caste marriage, are threatened with violence, or violence is actually committed on them. In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter caste or inter religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or OWP No.2548/2018 Page 3 of 5 commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter caste or inter-religious marriage. We, therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple are not harassed by any one nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, any one who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law."
10. In Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan K. M. & Ors. reported in AIR 2018 SC 1933, it has also been held that:-
"20. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights underscores the fundamental importance of marriage as an incident of human liberty:
"Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
21. The right to marry a person of one's choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees the right to life. This right cannot be taken away except through a law which is substantively and procedurally fair, just and reasonable. Intrinsic to the liberty which the Constitution guarantees as a fundamental right is the ability of each individual to take decisions on matters central to the pursuit of happiness. Matters of belief and faith, including whether to believe are at the core of constitutional liberty. The Constitution exists for believers as well as for agnostics. The Constitution protects the ability of each individual to pursue a way of life or faith to which she or he seeks to adhere. Matters of dress and of food, of ideas and ideologies, of love and partnership are within the central aspects of identity. The law may regulate (subject to constitutional compliance) the conditions of a valid marriage, as it may regulate the situations in which a marital tie can be ended or annulled. These remedies are available to parties to a marriage for it is they who decide best on whether they should accept each other into a marital tie or continue in that relationship. Society has no role to play in determining our choice of partners.
22. In Justice K S Puttaswamy v Union of India, 2017 (10) SCC 1, this Court in a decision of nine judges held that the ability to make decisions OWP No.2548/2018 Page 4 of 5 on matters close to one's life is an inviolable aspect of the human personality:
"The autonomy of the individual is the ability to make decisions on vital matters of concern to life... The intersection between one's mental integrity and privacy entitles the individual to freedom of thought, the freedom to believe in what is right, and the freedom of self- determination... The family, marriage, procreation and sexual orientation are all integral to the dignity of the individual."
A Constitution Bench of this Court, in Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No.215 of 2005, held:
"Our autonomy as persons is founded on the ability to decide: on what to wear and how to dress, on what to eat and on the food that we share, on when to speak and what we speak, on the right to believe or not to believe, on whom to love and whom to partner, and to freely decide on innumerable matters of consequence and detail to our daily lives."
The strength of the Constitution, therefore, lies in the guarantee which it affords that each individual will have a protected entitlement in determining a choice of partner to share intimacies within or outside marriage."
11. Mr. Raman Sharma, learned Dy. AG, is appearing on behalf of the official respondents and states that he has no objection, if the petition is disposed of at this stage.
12. In view of the above, this petition is, accordingly, disposed of at this stage, with a direction that the official respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shall ensure the protection of lives and liberty of the petitioners and shall take appropriate steps strictly in accordance with the ratio of judgment (supra).
(Sanjay Kumar Gupta) Judge Jammu 13.12.2018 Narinder OWP No.2548/2018 Page 5 of 5