Citations: Lata Singh Vs State of U.P. & Another, AIR 2006 SC 2522
Date of Judgement: 07/07/2006
Equivalent Citation: (2006) 5 SCC 475; 2006 (56) ACC 234
Case No.: W.P. No. (Crl.) 208 of 2004.
Case Type: Writ Petition
Petitioner: Lata Singh
Respondent(s): State of U.P. & Another
Bench: Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhan & Hon’ble Justice Markandey Katju
Court: Supreme Court of India
Statutes Referred:
- Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 366
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 164, 482.
- The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- Constitution of India; Article 32.
Facts:
- The petitioner, in this case, is Lata Singh, a young graduated woman aged 27 years. She pursued her master’s at Lucknow University. After the sudden demise of her parents, she lived with her brother, Ajay Pratap Singh (a resident of Lucknow).
- On 2.11.2000, the Petitioner left her home and married Brahma Nand Gupta at Arya Samaj Temple. Out of this marriage, they had a child.
- On 4.11.2000, the brother of the petitioner lodged a missing report of his sister at Sarojini Nagar Police Station and as a result, the police arrested two sisters of the petitioner’s husband named Mamta & Sangita Gupta along with the husband of one of the sisters named Rakesh Gupta and a cousin of the petitioner’s husband.
- The petitioner alleged that her brothers were furious because the petitioner had undergone inter-caste marriage against their consent. To take revenge, they visited her matrimonial home and vigorously attacked the family members.
- The brother of the petitioner threw away the luggage, furniture, and other things from the house and also locked one of the brothers of the petitioner’s husband without any food and water for five days.
- Threats to kill the petitioner, her husband, and relatives were constantly given. Lata’s brother lodged a false complaint against her in-laws about kidnapping his sister who is not stable.
- The family of the petitioner’s husband was harassed in every possible manner. The family was afraid to visit Lucknow because of violence by the petitioner’s brothers.
- Petitioner, who was helpless, approached Rajasthan Women Commission Jaipur to save her husband and other family members from this harassment 13.03.2001, the commission recorded her statement and the complaint was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Lucknow.
- The President of the Women Commission wrote an application to the National Human Rights Commission referring to the same matter requesting the authority to intervene.
- The SHO of Sarojini Nagar Police Station submitted the final report. The report presented showed no charges against any accused and they all were released on bail on 17.05.2001.
- On 29.05.2001, the statements of the petitioner were recorded before the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code. The petitioner stated that her marriage was not under coercion and it was her free consent.
- However, on 05.10.2001 the Hon’ble Magistrate passed the committal order.
- Petitioner filed a protest petition against the final report by the police which stated that she was not mentally fit. On medical examination, it was found that the petitioner was not suffering from any ailment.
- Later the Fast Track Court of Lucknow issued non-bailable warrants against the accused persons. Aggrieved by the order of the Fast Track Court, one of the accused presented a petition registered as Crl. Misc. No. 520/2003 before the Allahabad High Court. The matter was to be adjudged before the Session Judge.
- The appeal before the High Court of Allahabad was pending when the petitioner, Lata Singh, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for quashing the Session Trial No. 1201 of 2001 under Section 366 & 368 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also the trial pending before the Fast Track Court(Lucknow).
Issues Involved:
- Whether the Petition brought under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking issue of writ of certiorari or mandamus to quash the pending Session Trial under Section 366 & 368 of Indian Penal Code is maintainable or not?
Contention of Petitioner/Appellant:
- It is contended that the Petitioner is a major and is of sound mind. The petitioner has married Brahma Nand Gupta with her own free will and there is no cause of any coercion or force.
- It is alleged that the petitioner’s brother lodged false complaints against the petitioner’s husband and family. There is a serious threat by the petitioner’s brother to her husband and in-laws.
- From destroying their property to causing them life-threatening injuries, the petitioner’s brother has caused every possible harassment to her and her husband’s family.
- The petitioner’s brother is furious because the petitioner has undergone inter-caste marriage and he is exercising violence over the petitioner’s husband’s family.Inter-caste marriage is neither wrong nor prohibited by any law of the country.
- The petitioner alleged that due to the apprehension of life and safety for her and her family, she cannot visit Lucknow.
- The police and administration did not take any action against the petitioner’s brothers, rather arrested the family members of the petitioner’s husband on a mere complaint by the brother of the petitioner.
Contention of Respondent:
- The respondents alleged that the petitioner was not mentally fit and unable to give a valid consent.
- The husband and his family have instigated the petitioner to marry under force without the respondent’s consent.
- The respondent counsel further contended that in this case, the accused parties were liable under the ambit of Sections Section 366 & 368 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The accused parties have kidnapped, instigated, and compelled the respondent’s sister to marry against her wishes.
Judgement :
- The Honorable Supreme Court held that the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was maintainable for quashing the Session Trial under Section 366 & 368 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- The court observed that the marriage between the Petitioner and Brahma Nand Gupta was valid.
- The Court further observed that everyone has the right to marry and a definite right to choose their life partner under the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution. This fundamental right of any citizen cannot be violated at the instance of another person.
- Also, the Court quashed the Session Trial proceedings and the matter that was pending in the Fast Track Court. Accordingly, the issued warrants against the accused were also quashed.
- The Honorable Court condemned practices of honor-killing and the caste system as a hindrance to the development of a nation.
- The Court directed the police to ensure safety and required protection to the petitioner, her husband, and all the relatives of the petitioner’s husband.
- The Court ordered criminal proceedings to be instituted against the petitioner’s brother and others involved in causing violence to the family.
Thus, the Petition stands.
Ratio Decidendi:
- This case highlights the awful state of affairs. The petitioner here was a major and was also major at the time of marriage. She was mentally fit and free to marry a person of her own choice.
- Inter-caste marriage is not prohibited under Hindu Marriage Act or any other law prevailing. Hence, there was no offence by the accused or any other family members of the petitioner’s husband.
- This was a case of misuse of the power of the Court as well as the administrative authority at the hands of the petitioner’s brothers because they were furious that the petitioner had married outside their caste.
- The caste system is nothing but an obstruction in the development of a nation. It is dividing the nation and the couple marrying inter-caste along with the family are threatened and harassed.
- Every citizen has a fundamental right under Article 21 that also guarantees that a person is free to marry as per their own choice. Hence, the marriage of the petitioner was valid.
- The proceedings pending before the Session Trial and the Fast Track Court against the accused should be quashed in the absence of any offence.
- Also, the petitioner’s brothers should be punished for causing harassment and abusing the power of the Court.
Conclusion:
In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the writ petition. The case brings into light the abuse of power of the Court and Administrative machinery at the hand of the petitioner’s brothers, who were furious because of inter-caste marriage. The prevalence of social evils like the caste system is a roadblock for society’s development.
Hence, in this instant matter, the Apex Court held that every woman has the right to choose her life partner, and inter-caste marriage is neither wrong nor prohibited by any law.
Drafted By: Shivani Tiwary, School of Law DAVV
Edited by: Aashima Kakkar, Associate Editor, Law Insider
Published On: October 29, 2021 at 13:38 IST