'Despicable': Allahabad High Court slams family's objection to woman marrying person of choice
The Allahabad High Court has condemned the family resistance to an adult woman's decision to marry a person of her choice and called such objections "despicable".
Providing protection to the 27-year-old woman who feared abduction, a bench of Justices J.J. Munir and Praveen Kumar Giri said the right to marry a person of one's choice is protected under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India.
The court was dealing with a petition moved by the father and brother of the woman (fourth respondent) seeking quashing of an FIR lodged by her under sections 140(3) (abduction), 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and others of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita at Chilh police station of Mirzapur district.
"It is despicable that the petitioners should object to the decision of an adult member of the family, a woman 27 years of age, about marrying a man of her choice. At least that is the right which every adult has under the Constitution by virtue of Article 21," the Bench said in its order dated June 13.
The court clarified that it did not know whether the petitioners i.e. woman's father and brother, "really intend to abduct" her but the matter reflected a larger societal issue, i.e., the "value gap" between constitutional and social norms.
"The fact that there is social and familial resistance to the exercise of such right is a glaring depiction of the 'value gap' between the constitutional norms and those social. So long as there is a gap between the values fostered by the Constitution and those cherished by the society, these kinds of incidents would continue to happen," the court said.
In the FIR, the woman alleged a threat of abduction for wanting to marry a man of her choice. Though the court stayed the arrest of the petitioners in connection with the FIR, it also restrained them from interfering in the woman's life or from assaulting, threatening or contacting her or the man she intends to marry or live with.
"The petitioners shall not contact the fourth respondent (woman) over telephone or any other electronic device or using internet or through friends or associates. The police are also restrained from interfering with the fourth respondent's freedom and liberty in any manner, whatsoever," the court directed.
Granting time to State counsel and to informant to file counter-affidavit in the matter, the court ordered to list the case on July 18.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
35 minutes ago
- NDTV
'Sowing Division': BJP After Karnataka Hikes Housing Quota For Minorities
The Karnataka government has increased reservation for the downtrodden and minorities under various housing schemes from 10 to 15 per cent, inviting a sharp reaction from the BJP, which has accused the Congress of "pushing religious quotas to appease its vote bank". Announcing the decision, which has been cleared by the Siddarmaiah-led Karnataka cabinet, on Thursday, state Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister HK Patil said the government had noted that the number of people without homes is higher among the downtrodden and minorities, and it is committed to providing housing for all. "We are very particular that all should get housing. Housing for all is to be implemented and, right now, we see that the houseless are more among various downtrodden and minorities. We have increased the housing reservation from 10 to 15 per cent, looking at the ground realities," the minister said. Mr Patil stressed that the reservation will be increased for all minority communities, including Christians, Jains and Buddhists. "The government is very particular that the houseless, irrespective of the community they belong to, should get (houses). Housing for all is the government's resolve," he added. Launching a scathing attack, BJP leader Amit Malviya said the decision was unconstitutional and accused the Congress of "sowing the seeds of division" and "ripping apart the social fabric of Karnataka". "This is brazen. Blatantly illegal and unconstitutional. There can be no reservation on the basis of religion - the Constitution is unambiguous on this. Yet, the Congress government in Karnataka is hell-bent on pushing religious quotas to appease its vote bank. This isn't governance, it's dangerous social engineering," he wrote on X. This is brazen. Blatantly illegal and unconstitutional. There can be no reservation on the basis of religion — the Constitution is unambiguous on this. Yet, the Congress government in Karnataka is hell-bent on pushing religious quotas to appease its vote bank. This isn't… — Amit Malviya (@amitmalviya) June 19, 2025 "Congress is determined to sow the seeds of division, polarise communities, and rip apart the social fabric of Karnataka - all for short-term political gain. Karnataka deserves better," he added. Earlier Row The state had seen another controversy over reservation earlier this year, after the Assembly had cleared the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements (Amendment) Bill, providing 4 per cent reservation for Muslims in public contracts. The BJP and Janata Dal (Secular) had termed the Bill unconstitutional and sent a petition to the governor, claiming it would polarise society. In April, Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot sent the Bill to President Droupadi Murmu, saying that the Constitution does not allow reservation based on religion.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
WhatsApp chats, no show at site: Probe flags Justice Varma's 'unnatural conduct'
Not filing a police complaint and quietly accepting his transfer to the Allahabad High Court were among the things deemed "unnatural" by the committee constituted to probe allegations of cash discovery at the residence of Justice Yashwant on these findings, the three-member panel, constituted by the Supreme Court, recommended the removal of Justice cash stash was found at Justice Varma's official residence in Delhi when a fire broke out there on March 14. Justice Varma was not at his residence then. After the matter was reported to the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court transferred him from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Sources have told India Today that a motion will be tabled in the next session of Parliament to impeach Justice Varma. WHAT THE INQUIRY PANEL REPORT SAYSCommunication only through WhatsAppSeveral staff members of Justice Varma who were examined said they communicated with him only through WhatsApp on the intervening night of March 14-15. Details of this WhatsApp communication could not be retrieved as it is an encrypted show at spot where cash was foundThe panel found that Justice Varma and his wife did not visit the store room even once upon their return to Delhi. Justice Varma attempted to justify this by saying that he was concerned with the well-being of his family the committee found it to be odd, since anyone under such circumstances would visit the spot at least once to assess the claim falls flatJustice Varma never filed a complaint with the police despite alleging a conspiracy against him. The report said if there was indeed any conspiracy, the judge should have filed a complaint or brought it to the notice of the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Chief Justice of accepted transferThe inquiry panel also found that Justice Varma quietly accepted his transfer to the Allahabad High Court on the same day it was proposed, without any was done within a few hours of the transfer being proposed, despite the fact that he had time till the next morning to communicate his decision. The report said he didn't even attempt to find out the reasons behind the EVIDENCEThere are several other aspects that also worked against Justice Varma. The report mentioned that CCTV cameras monitoring the store room were not working. Justice Varma claimed that the CCTV was controlled by the security, and he was not aware why it was not in an 11-second video taken at midnight on March 15, made by Sunil Kumar, PCR in-charge, showed heaps of cash in front of the door and at the back of the store room. One person is heard saying, "Note hi note hain, dekho dikh rahein hain (The room is filled with notes, it can be seen)."Must Watch
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
US Supreme Court upholds Tennessee law banning youth transgender care
Washington: The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors on Wednesday in a setback for transgender rights that could bolster efforts by states to defend other measures targeting transgender people. The court, in a 6-3 ruling powered by its conservative justices, decided that the ban does not violate the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment promise of equal protection, as challengers to the law had argued. The ruling affirmed a lower court's decision that backed Tennessee's law, which bars medical treatments such as puberty blockers and hormones for people under age 18 experiencing gender dysphoria. The Supreme Court's three liberal justices dissented. "Tennessee concluded that there is an ongoing debate among medical experts regarding the risks and benefits associated with administering puberty blockers and hormones to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder and gender incongruence. (The law's) ban on such treatments responds directly to that uncertainty," conservative Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court's majority. Gender dysphoria is the clinical diagnosis for significant distress that can result from an incongruence between a person's gender identity and the sex assigned at birth. Chase Strangio, a transgender American Civil Liberties lawyer who represented some of the challengers in the case, called the ruling "a devastating loss for transgender people, our families and everyone who cares about the Constitution." Transgender rights as an issue has become a major flashpoint in the U.S. culture wars. Since returning to office in January, Republican President Donald Trump has taken a hardline stance against transgender rights. Wednesday's ruling will have a broad impact as Tennessee's law is one of 25 such policies enacted by conservative state lawmakers around the United States. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi , a Trump appointee, in a social media post applauded the ruling and encouraged other states to "follow Tennessee's lead and enact similar legislation to protect our kids." Various other state restrictions have been enacted in recent years targeting transgender people, from bathroom use to sports participation, some limited to minors but others extending to adults. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed dismay that the Supreme Court largely deferred to the state legislature's policy choices in upholding the ban. "By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent," Sotomayor wrote, joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The Justice Department under Democratic former President Joe Biden's administration had challenged the law. Trump's administration told the Supreme Court in February that Tennessee's ban was not unlawful, reversing the government's position. Tennessee's law, passed in 2023, aims to encourage minors to "appreciate their sex" by prohibiting healthcare workers from prescribing puberty blockers and hormones to help them live as "a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex." Providers can be sued and face fines and professional discipline under the law for any violations. The law allows these medications to be used for any other purpose, including to address congenital defects, early-onset puberty or other conditions. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti welcomed Wednesday's ruling, saying that the state legislature had "voted to protect kids from irreversible decisions they cannot yet fully understand." Several plaintiffs - three transgender minors and their parents, as well as a doctor who provides the type of care at issue - sued to challenge the Tennessee law's legality. Biden's Justice Department subsequently intervened in the lawsuit, opposing Tennessee's law. The challengers argued that the law discriminates against these adolescents based on sex and transgender status, violating the 14th Amendment. 'DIGNITY AND EQUALITY' Some transgender people gathered at a church near the Supreme Court building and denounced the ruling. "I am myself trans, and I am very concerned about efforts to erase transgender people from public life," Nicky Sundt said in an interview. The ACLU's Strangio said, "We are as determined as ever to fight for the dignity and equality of every transgender person." Tennessee has said it is banning "risky, unproven gender-transition interventions," pointing to "scientific uncertainty," tightened restrictions in some European countries and "firsthand accounts of regret and harm" from people who discontinue or reverse treatments. Medical associations, noting that gender dysphoria is associated with higher rates of suicide, have said gender-affirming care can be life-saving, and that long-term studies show its effectiveness. Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, a lawyer at the ACLU of Tennessee, said, "This ruling creates a class of people who politicians believe deserve healthcare, and a class of people who do not." A federal judge blocked the law as likely violating the 14th Amendment but the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed the judge's preliminary injunction. In a June 11-12 Reuters/Ipsos poll of Americans, 53% of respondents said they supported "laws that prevent transgender children under the age of 18 from getting medical treatment related to gender identity and gender transitioning." Another 28% opposed such laws and the rest were unsure or did not answer the question. Among Republicans, support for such laws was at 57% and opposition at 28%. Among Democrats, support was at 23% and opposition at 54%. The Supreme Court on May 6 permitted Trump's administration to implement his ban on transgender people in the military while legal challenges play out. Trump has taken actions targeting "gender ideology" and declaring that the U.S. government will recognize two sexes: male and female. Trump issued executive orders curtailing gender-affirming medical treatments for youth under 19 and excluding transgender girls and women from female sports, while rescinding Biden's orders combating discrimination against gay and transgender people. Will Dunham )
