Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, CJI., A.M. KHANWILKAR, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
Shafin Jahan – Appellant(s)
Versus
K.M. Asokan & Others – Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No. 366 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5777 of 2017)
Decided On : 08-03-2018
Marriage - Habeas Corpus - The court held that the High Court should not have annulled the marriage between the appellant and respondent in a Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant's wife appeared before the court and admitted her marriage, leading to the appeal being allowed and the High Court's judgment and order being set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The High Court annulled the marriage between the appellant and respondent in a Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the High Court should not have annulled the marriage and allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and order.
Issues: Annulling of marriage in a Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The personal presence of the appellant's wife and her admission of the marriage influenced the court's decision to set aside the High Court's judgment and order.
Final Decision: The appeal stands allowed, and the judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside. The appellant's wife is at liberty to pursue her future endeavors according to law, and the NIA's investigations may continue in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT
Leave granted.
2. Heard Mr. Kapil Sibal and Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Haris Beeran, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General for the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel along with Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
3. The reasoned judgment will follow. The operative part of the order reads as follows:-
Considering the arguments advanced on both sides, in the facts of the present case, we hold that the High Court should not have annulled the marriage between appellant No.1, Shafin Jahan and respondent No.9, Hadiya alias Akhila Asokan, in a Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We say so because in the present appeal, by special leave, we had directed the personal presence of Hadiya alias Akhila Asokan; she appeared before this Court on 27th November, 2017, and admitted her marriage with appellant No.1.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal stands allowed. The judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside. Respondent No.9, Hadiya alias Akhila Asokan is at liberty to pursue her future endeavours according to law. We clarify that the investigations by the NIA in respect of any matter of criminality may continue in accordance with law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
