Adults have right to marry without family interference, says Delhi high court
Justice Sanjeev Narula stated that the Supreme Court has consistently upheld this principle, directing law enforcement to protect couples from threats or coercion. In this case, the court ordered police protection for a young couple who feared harassment from the woman's family.
The couple had solemnised their marriage on July 23, 2025, following Hindu rituals at an Arya Samaj trust in Delhi.
They approached the court after the woman's parents allegedly tried to pressure her, despite her voluntary departure from her family home and her clear affirmation of the marriage during a police inquiry. That inquiry, initiated after a "missing" complaint, was later closed.
To ensure their safety, the court instructed the local Station House Officer (SHO) to assign a beat officer, brief them on the court's directives, and provide the couple with emergency contact numbers. Any reported threats must be documented and addressed without delay.
Justice Narula clarified that the court was not ruling on the veracity of the allegations but was solely focused on protecting the couple's fundamental rights to life, liberty, and dignity.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
14 minutes ago
- News18
SC Quashes Criminal Case After Divorce, Says Law Not To Be Used For Harassment
The court observed that in appropriate cases, the power to quash such proceedings is essential to uphold fairness and bring finality to personal disputes that have run their course The Supreme Court, on August 12, held that where a matrimonial relationship has ended in divorce and both parties have settled into their respective lives, criminal prosecution arising from that past relationship should not be allowed to continue as a form of harassment. A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Vishwanathan observed that in appropriate cases, the power to quash such proceedings is essential to uphold fairness and bring finality to personal disputes that have run their course. The court was hearing an appeal filed by Navneesh Aggarwal and his parents against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order dated August 1, 2024, which had declined to quash an FIR lodged under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, and 506 of the IPC by his former wife. The wife had raised no objection to the quashing, and both parties had ended their relationship through divorce by mutual consent, withdrawing all pending cases. The bench said that within the framework of inherent powers, a High Court may quash a criminal proceeding, complaint, or FIR if it is satisfied that, in light of such a settlement, there is little likelihood of conviction and that continuing the proceedings would result in injustice. The court stressed the need to apply the law in a way that addresses genuine grievances while preventing misuse. The judges noted that once the marital relationship has ended in divorce and the parties have moved on, continuing criminal proceedings against family members, particularly in the absence of specific and proximate allegations, serves no legitimate purpose. Such continuation, they said, only prolongs bitterness and burdens the criminal justice system with disputes that are no longer active. In this case, neither party was interested in pursuing criminal proceedings. The bench invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to advance complete justice, quashing the chargesheet and FIR registered at Police Station Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, along with all other criminal proceedings arising from them. The court referred to Dara Lakshmi Narayana v State of Telangana (2025), which held that criminal law is not to be used as a tool of harassment and that judicial scrutiny must guard against such misuse. It also cited Mala Kar v State of Uttarakhand (March 19, 2024) and Arun Jain v State of NCT of Delhi (April 1, 2024), in which it had exercised powers under Article 142 to quash criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes once the parties had divorced, holding that continuation of prosecution in such circumstances amounted to an abuse of process. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, noting that the former wife no longer intended to prosecute the case. It found that continuing the proceedings would only result in harassment to the appellants, given the facts of the matter, and that no useful purpose would be served by taking the case to its conclusion. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on March 6, 2018. About ten months later, the wife left the matrimonial home with her daughter from an earlier marriage. Multiple cases were filed thereafter, including the present FIR. A decree of divorce by mutual consent was granted by the Family Court on January 19, 2024, and all other pending proceedings initiated by the wife were withdrawn. When the appellants sought quashing of the FIR before the High Court, their plea was dismissed on the ground that certain allegations relating to the victimisation of the child had been sufficiently substantiated. The Supreme Court, however, found no justification for continuing the criminal proceedings in view of the mutual settlement, divorce, and the wife's lack of interest in pursuing the matter. tags : divorce marriage supreme court view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: August 15, 2025, 05:17 IST News india SC Quashes Criminal Case After Divorce, Says Law Not To Be Used For Harassment Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hindustan Times
34 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
High drama marks Panchayat polls in Nainital
Dehradun: Uttarakhand high court on Thursday took cognizance of allegations that five elected representatives in Nainital district panchayat were missing ahead of voting. However, police said that affidavits submitted by the five elected members claimed they were staying away voluntarily. Counting of votes underway for Uttarakhand Panchayat Elections, in Nainital, on July 31 (PTI) Congress leaders alleged that they were abducted to influence the outcome of election of district panchayat president for which voting was underway on Thursday . A division bench of chief justice G Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra, hearing a public interest litigation, questioned the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Nainital PN Meena on whether the missing representatives had been traced. The SSP said security personnel had visited their homes as per earlier court directions to provide protection 10 days before voting, but were told by relatives that the representatives were visiting family and did not require security. Polling was held on Thursday for the posts of district panchayat presidents as well as vice presidents and Block Pramukhs. The SSP added that the police had received affidavits from the five representatives stating they were travelling and had asked that no case be registered if anyone reported them missing. Two more similar affidavits were received on Thursday. Advocate General SN Babulkar told the court that all representatives had confirmed they were abstaining from voting on their own will. However, senior counsel DS Patni presented a pen drive with video footage allegedly showing one of the representatives, Dikar Singh Mewari, being dragged away by unidentified men, some of whose faces were visible, while an armed policeman looked away. Another video purportedly showed three more affidavit signatories being forcibly removed from a polling booth. The bench directed that both videos be handed over to the Nainital SSP and District Magistrate Vandana Singh for examination. Counsel DS Mehta told the court that an attempt to file a kidnapping complaint naming the alleged abductors was rejected by the Tallital SHO. The SSP assured the bench that action would be taken against any police personnel found guilty of dereliction of duty. Family members of three missing representatives — Uma Bisht, sister of Deep Singh Bisht; Vinod Kotalia, brother of Pramod Singh; and Sanjeev Jantwal, son of Vipin Singh Jantwal-appeared before the court — each detailing how their relatives were taken away. Kotalia alleged that his brother was abducted by a group . Jantwal said he had seen a video of his father's abduction on a Facebook account. The court ordered that its directions be sent immediately to the district magistrate and SSP, with affidavits kept in the safe custody of the Registrar (Judicial). The matter will be heard next on August 18. Earlier, high drama was witnessed during the election for district panchayat president and block Pramukh in Nainital, turned tense on Thursday with clashes, allegations of kidnapping and even firing between supporters of the BJP and Congress. Congress leaders Yashpal Arya, Khatima MLA Bhuvan Kapri, Haldwani MLA Sumit Hridayesh, former MLA Sanjeev Arya, district panchayat president candidate Pushpa Negi, and 10 members arrived at the High Court while a hearing was underway before Chief Justice G Narender and Justice Alok Mahra. They alleged before the bench that 'people of the ruling party' assaulted them and 'tried to kidnap some members.' Showing election result certificates for 15 members, they claimed that 'five of their local leaders were missing.' The court directed District Magistrate Vandana Singh and SSP Nainital PN Meena to appear virtually within minutes. It ordered both officers to 'maintain law and order' and ensure 'peaceful and fair elections,' instructing that members be brought to the polling station in police security. High Court security officer Rakesh Bisht was tasked with escorting the 10 district panchayat members who were in court to the polling station under police protection. In the block pramukh election at Betalghat in Nainital districts, three rounds of firing were reported amid clashes between supporters of both parties. Police dispersed the crowd and began an investigation. Both sides accused each other of instigating violence. BJP state president Mahendra Bhatt alleged that Yashpal Arya was 'trying to influence the voting,' while Congress state president Karan Mahara accused the BJP of 'assaulting Congress leaders.' District Magistrate Vandana Singh, who appeared in the court in the evening again, told the court that she will recommend repolling for zila panchayat elections to the state election commission (SEC)
Hindustan Times
34 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC cancels Darshan's bail; actor, main accused held
Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa was arrested in Bengaluru on Thursday, just hours after the Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to him by the Karnataka high court in the Renukaswamy murder case. Police took him into custody near his Hosakerehalli residence soon after he returned to the city from an outstation trip. Police arrest actor Pavitra Gowda from her residence after the Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to her by the High Court in the Renukaswamy murder case, in Bengaluru on Thursday. (ANI) The apex court's order also covered Darshan's associate Pavithra Gowda and five other accused, all of whom were arrested and will be produced before the trial court in Bengaluru, police said. According to police, Gowda was picked up earlier in the day by the Annapoorneshwari Nagar police. Pradoosh S Rao, Lakshman M, and Nagaraj are among those detained. While cancelling the bail to the actor, a bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said, 'Granting leniency to such persons despite grave charges of conspiracy and murder sends the wrong message to society and undermines public confidence in the justice system.' In a democracy governed by the rule of law, the bench said, 'no individual is exempt from legal accountability by virtue of status or social capital'. In the present case, it said, 'By treating A2's (Darshan) stature as a mitigating factor, the high court committed a manifest perversity in the exercise of its discretion, thereby warranting cancellation of bail.' Police officers said a copy of the Supreme Court order was submitted to the trial court to secure arrest warrants for all the accused before their remand to judicial custody. The order follows a special leave petition filed by the state government challenging the high court's decision in December 2024 to grant bail to the accused. Darshan, who had been away when news of the court's decision reached him, was contacted by police and asked to appear before investigators. He complied, arriving in a luxury SUV before switching to another vehicle to avoid the media assembled outside his apartment. He entered the premises through the back door. The murder case, began with Darshan's arrest in June 2024. Police allege he orchestrated the killing of Renukaswamy, a resident of Chitradurga, after the victim allegedly stalked and abused Gowda on social media. The actor was detained on June 11, 2024, in Mysuru while filming The Devil and was held in custody for 131 days. He was released on interim bail in October and granted regular bail in December. With the latest court order, Darshan is expected to be shifted to the Ballari Central Prison. He was previously housed there after being moved from the Parappana Agrahara Central Prison when images emerged of him smoking and mingling with high-profile inmates. Following that episode, Ballari prison authorities heightened security measures, including raising the perimeter wall to 25 feet and preparing a secure cell. The measures were taken after fans breached prison boundaries during his earlier detention, police officers said. The Supreme Court's decision comes a day before the scheduled release of the first song from The Devil. The film's team had announced on August 10 that the track 'Idre Nemdiyaag Irbek' (You should live in peace) would be released on Independence Day morning, an event now likely to be overshadowed by the arrest. For Renukaswamy's family, Thursday's ruling was a moment of relief. His father, Shivanagouda, welcomed the decision. 'Darshan's bail has been cancelled. There is an order to arrest him. This brings our faith back…The Supreme Court order reinstates the belief that no one can escape the law,' he said. Chief minister Siddaramaiah's legal advisor AS Ponnanna said the verdict would strengthen the prosecution's case. 'We had feared that the investigation would be hampered because Darshan was out on bail. There was a possibility that he could influence the witnesses while he was out. However, now all these challenges will be resolved with the order given by the Supreme Court,' he said. Soon after the court's order was received on Thursday morning, senior police officials briefed home minister G Parameshwara at the Vidhana Soudha. 'The law is the same for everyone. No one is above the law in the country. Everyone should respect the law of the land. The accused have the opportunity to fight for justice further, and that is also allowed by the law,' Parameshwara said.
