The Delhi High Court has recently held that the freedom of choice in marriage in accordance with law is an intrinsic part of Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution. In view of the above, the High Court said that the police should act expeditiously in cases of couples legally marrying out of their own free will and volition.
A bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta noted, “Even questions of faith have no bearing on an individual’s freedom to choose a life partner and are essence of personal liberty.”
The ruling comes in light of bail applications stemming from a case in which the complainant Raman was allegedly the victim of a murder attempt and a physical assault by a woman’s (Menka’s) family, after she married him against her family’s wish.
It has been alleged that the family members of Raman’s wife abducted the couple on December 22, 2021, and after brutally beating him up, the man’s private parts were amputated with an axe. Later, he was thrown into a drain from where he was rescued by his brother and was admitted to AIIMS Trauma Centre.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) submitted before the bench that after the solemnization of the marriage when the couple returned to Delhi, the family members of the woman got infuriated and threatened to kill the husband. Thereafter, the family members abducted the couple and took them to their house.
APP further submitted that the grandmother of the woman exhorted that Raman “did not deserve any mercy” and directed other family members to chop off his private part to eliminate the entire problem. Thereafter, the family members present at the spot caught hold of Raman, assaulted him with an axe, and amputated his private part.
However, the counsel appearing for the accused while arguing on behalf of the sister and mother of Menka submitted that they have clean antecedents and no specific role has been attributed against them. Whereas, for the grandmother, it was argued that she is an old woman aged 86 and is suffering from various ailments.
The APP contended that so far as the grandmother is concerned, she is a habitual offender and has been involved in 42 other criminal cases. Additionally, she exhorted the other members of her family to remove Raman’s private part.
In this light, the bench noted that as far as the sister of Menka is concerned, no active role appears to have been attributed to her and accepted her bail. Whereas, Menka’s grandmother and mother, both of whom have criminal antecedents, are alleged to have participated in the assault and forced family members to carry out Raman’s private part’s amputation. The bench denied them bail.
Additionally, the High Court noted, “In view of above, wherever the life and liberty of any individual is concerned, especially in cases of couples legally marrying out of their own free will and volition, the police are expected to act expeditiously and with sensitivity in accordance with law and take necessary measures for protection and safety of applicants concerned, if they apprehend hostility and concerns for their safety from different quarters including their own family members.”
The bench also directed the Commissioner of Delhi Police to take necessary measures for sensitising officials in dealing with such complaints, while taking note of the fact that necessary steps for ensuring the safety and security of the victims/complainants were not initiated by Rajouri Garden’s police station’s Station House Officer.
“The conduct of the concerned police officials in this regard is depreciable and needs to be looked into and necessary action must be taken. Any such lapse cannot be accepted on behalf of the police,” the bench added.
Read all the Latest India News here
Comments
0 comment