Right to marriage and Right to make the choice of life partner
FAMILY LAW – I (LAW3103)
Every person has the right to choose his lifemate and it's an essential right. My friend loves his associate, and they've decided to get married. They belong to a different community, thus, can not marry due to the customs of their society. He's alarmed because his uncle alerted him that if he marries his friend, likewise he should be ready to face serious consequences. Sir, this doesn’t act right, and no one can force them to repudiate from their decision. Please tell me what they should do?
He shouldn't be afraid of the pitfalls given by his uncle. They've attained the age of maturity for the marriage as needed under Section 5 (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (HMA). According to Section 5 (iii) of HMA, the single age for the bride is 21 times and 18 times for a bridegroom. Therefore they can solemnize their marriage without the concurrence or authorization of parents. The Hindu Marriage Act recognizes inter-caste marriage. Hence, they have the right to solemnize their marriage under HMA, still, they belong to a different Hindu community. A marriage between two Hindus is valid under section 5 of HMA anyhow of their estate or community.
Counsel for the supplicant has opened his arguments with reference to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, to which India is also a signatory, in which Composition 16 provides that" (1) Men and Women of full age, without any condition due to race, country or religion, own the right to marry and to plant a family.". They're 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 concurrence of the intending consorts; (3) The family is the natural and abecedarian group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society". No authority need be cited for the proposition that right to marry is a necessary attendant of right to life guaranteed under Composition 21 of the Constitution." Right to life includes the right to lead a healthy life so as to enjoy all the faculties of the mortal body in their high condition. The right of marriage is a component of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. There's no disagreement that the supplicant is a major and was at all applicable times a major. There's no bar to an inter-caste marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law. Hence, we can not see what offense was committed by the supplicant, her hubby, or her hubby's cousins. We're of the opinion that no offense was committed by any of the indicted and the whole felonious case in question is an abuse of the process of the Court as well as of
the executive ministry at the case of the petitioner's sisters who were only furious because the supplicant married outside her estate.
We're worried to note that rather than taking action against the petitioner's sisters for their unlawful and high-handed acts the police have rather progressed against the petitioner's hubby and his cousins. Since several similar cases are coming to our knowledge of importunity, pitfalls, and violence against youthful men and women who marry outside their estate, we feel it necessary to make some general commentary on the matter. The estate system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it's destroyed the better. In our opinion, similar acts of violence or pitfalls or importunity are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be oppressively penalized.
Still, they can't give risks or commit or instigate acts of violence and can't kill the person who undergoes analogousinter-caste or inter-religious marriage, If the parents of the boy or girl don't authorize similar inter-caste inter-religious marriage the outside they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or the son. We, thus, direct that the administration/ police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who's a major undergoesinter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who's a major, the couple aren't wearied by anyone nor subordinated to pitfalls or acts of violence, and anyone who gives similar pitfalls or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by constituting felonious proceedings by the police against similar persons and farther stern action is taken against similar persons as handed by law. We occasionally hear of honor killings of similar persons who suffering-caste inter-religious marriage of their own free will. The police at all the concerned places should ensure that neither the supplicant nor her hubby nor any cousins of the petitioner's hubby is wearied or hovered nor any acts of violence are committed against them.
We further direct that in view of the allegations in the solicitation felonious proceedings shall be introduced forthwith by the concerned authorities against the petitioner's sisters and others involved in the agreement with a law
"There is no mistrustfulness that a woman's right to make reproductive choices is also a dimension of" particular liberty" as understood under Composition 21 of the Constitution of India. It's important to honor that reproductive choice can be exercised to propagate as well as to hesitate from propagating. The pivotal consideration is that a woman's right to sequestration, quality, and fleshly integrity should be admired. This means that there should be no restriction whatsoever on the exercise of reproductive choices similar as a woman's right to refuse participation in sexual exertion or alternately the asseveration on use of contraceptive styles". Still, it’s subject to the MTP Act, 1971, which can alike be inspected as analytic restrictions on the exercise of reproductive options. the operation of the supplicant for appointment as a Supplementary Nanny-cum-Midwife was rejected on the ground that she has been living with her hubby just a many days before then she filed the operation and wasn't having endless hearthstone of last 10 times was struck down by the Court on the ground that it would put a fetter on a lady citizen's right to marry and it would be easy against the vittles of the Constitution of India as each and every lady citizen has a right to get wedded and to live along with her hubby in his domestic house.
The parties to the list are Sikh by religion and are governed by the Act of 1955 in which Section 5 lays down the conditions which are to be fulfilled in order to perform a valid marriage and Section 11 lays down the vittles for declaring the marriage a nullity in case it contravenes Sections 5 (i), (iv) and (v) of the Act of 1955. Composition 16 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 specifically provides for the right to marriage between men and women of full age with their free and full concurrence. Composition 23 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and attest to the delicacy and authenticity ***** Political Rights, espoused by the General Assembly of the United Nations on19.12.1966, also stipulates the right of men and women of single age to marry. Our Courts have also held that the right to marry is a necessary attendant of the right to life guaranteed under Composition 21 of the Constitution of India and if not an abecedarian right, it's akin to it and so on and so forth. Colorful judgments have been cited by learned counsel for the supplicant about the right to marry and the last but not least, the judgment in Jasvir Singh's case (supra) in which this Court has answered the question in affirmative that the right to gravidity survives incarceration. It's also held that such a right is traceable and exactly falls within the dimension of Composition 21 of our Constitution read with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but in the absence of any medium to mileage the said right for gravidity, either by marital rights or artificial copulation, colorful directions have been issued including Constitution of a Jail Reforms Committee to be headed by a former Judge of the High Court, appertained to in extenso, in the earlier part of this order, but still the prayer made by the leaders, in that case, was declined in which one of the grounds was that the circumstance leading to the pleaders' incarceration was far grave in nature and different from those where one of the partners was completely innocent and possessory of all mortal rights without any curtailment unlike the instant case where both of them are cons and witnessing death judgment and life conviction, independently.
Therefore, in the instant case, this Court is of the view that an under-trial internee, being presumed to be innocent, has a right to marry with I attest to the delicacy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh of someone who isn't an under-trial like him/ her and/ or a person can marry an under-trial internee if he/ she desires. Both the partners in the case were grown-ups and so free to marry of their choice. The court further observed that there's no bar to an inter-caste marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or any other law. Inter-caste marriages are in fact in the public interest as they will affect in destroying the estate- system. Re Indian Woman says gang ravished on orders of Village Court, where a 20-time old woman was allegedly gang- ravished on the orders of community panchayat as discipline for having a relationship with a man from a different community, the Apex court, while suo moto taking cognizance of the matter and disapproving the concerned authorities held that the State is duty-bound to cover the Fundamental Rights of its citizens; and "an essential aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution would be the freedom of choice in marriage."
THIS IS A FREE AND POPULAR COUNTRY, AND FORMERLY A PERSON BECOMES A MAJOR HE OR SHE CAN MARRY WHOSOEVER HE/ SHE LIKES. IF THE PARENTS OF THE BOY OR GIRL DO NOT AUTHORIZE OF SUCHINTER-CASTE OR INTER-RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE THE MAXIMUM THEY CAN DO IS THAT CAN CUT OFF SOCIAL RELATIONS WITH SON OR THE SON, BUT THEY CAN NOT GIVE PITFALLS OR COMMIT OR INSTIGATE ACTS OF VIOLENCE AND CAN NOT Kill THE PERSON WHO UNDERGOES SUCH INTER-CASTE OR INTER-RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE. THE CHOICE OF A PARTNER WHETHER WITHIN OR OUTSIDE MARRIAGE LIES WITHIN A CORE ZONE OF PRIVACY, WHICH IS INVIOLABLE.