Back
Waives Notice Publication for Fearing Threats to Life
In a significant decision underscoring the fundamental , the has dispensed with the publication of a marriage notice and the under the for an who apprehended serious threats to their lives from family members. The Court also directed the , to provide protection to the couple.
A Couple's Plea for Protection
The petitioners, both adults, had been in a for about two years and had a nine-month-old child. Due to their different religious backgrounds, they sought to solemnize their marriage under the . However, they faced strong opposition from their parents and relatives, leading to an FIR being lodged by the mother of petitioner no. 1 under . Fearing for their safety, the couple approached the High Court, seeking a direction to the Marriage Officer to accept their notice of intended marriage without the usual publication and objection process, and also sought .
Court's Analysis of the Special Marriage Act
The Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai examined the provisions of . Section 5 requires parties to give notice of intended marriage to the Marriage Officer of the district where at least one party has resided for at least 30 days. Section 6 mandates the publication of this notice, and Section 7 allows any person to file objections within 30 days. The Court noted that the purpose of these provisions is to invite scrutiny, but they are not absolute.
Crucially, the Court relied on its earlier decision in , which held that the requirements of publication and inviting objections are and are to be given effect only upon the request of the parties. In the present case, given the imminent threat to the couple's life and liberty, the Court held that these procedural steps could be dispensed with.
Constitutional Right to Choose a Partner
Emphasizing the constitutional framework, the Court observed that the is an intrinsic part of the under . It quoted the 's decision in to underscore that this right cannot be dictated by the State, law, or society. The Court stated:
"Right to live with a person of his/her choice, irrespective of religion professed by individuals is intrinsic to … Neither State nor law nor society can dictate the choice of partner."
This observation reinforced the Court's decision to protect the couple's autonomy and safety.
Final Directions: Marriage Without Notice and
The High Court directed the petitioners to submit their notice of intended marriage to the Marriage Officer, Lucknow, within ten days. The Marriage Officer was instructed to proceed with the solemnization without publishing the notice or entertaining any objections. However, the Officer retains the power to verify the identity, age, and valid consent of the parties.
Recognizing the apparent threat to the couple, the Court directed the , to provide necessary protection and assistance, both before and after the marriage, based on a . The petitioners were also permitted to approach the police if any harm is caused by family members or others.
The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, affirming that constitutional courts must uphold the life and liberty of individuals guaranteed under Article 21.
