SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 6943

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V.G.ARUN, J
VISHNU SUBHASH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 713/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SUVIN.R.MENON, ANILKUMAR C.R., PARSHATHY S.R., ACHUTH KRISHNAN R., CRISTY THERASA SURESH
For the Respondents: M.C. ASHI

The right to marry is fundamental and cannot be infringed by family opposition, affirming voluntary consent in marriage.

Headnote:The petitioners filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Case seeking to quash an FIR under Section 57(1)(a) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 regarding a marriage performed voluntarily. The Court found no necessity for further investigation as the 2nd petitioner appeared willingly. Issues included the legality of the FIR and the Court reaffirmed the right to marry, leading to the quashing of the FIR. The result was that the FIR and further proceedings were quashed, reflecting respect for personal liberties.

Table of Content
1. filing to quash an fir for a voluntary marriage. (Para 1)
2. concerns about the loss of personal will in marriage. (Para 2)
3. court confirms voluntary nature of the 2nd petitioner's marriage decision. (Para 3)

O R D E R

Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2025 This Crl.MC is filed seeking to quash Annexure A4 FIR and further proceedings in Crime No. 72 of 2025 registered at the Poonthura Police Station. The essential facts are as under;

The petitioners, aged 22 and 20 years respectively, were in love and decided to get married. On 17.01.2025, 2nd petitioner voluntarily went along with the 1st petitioner. Thereafter, marriage of the petitioners was solemnised in accordance with the customs of Hindu religion. In the meanwhile, father of the 2nd petitioner lodged a man missing complaint at the Poonthura Police Station. This led to the registration of Annexure A4 FIR under Section

57(1)(a) of the Kerala Police Act , 2011.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 2nd petitioner is apprehensive that on production before the jurisdictional Magistrate, members of her family may forcibly take her away.

3. In view of the above submission, the petitioners were directed to appear in person. Accordingly, the petitioners appeared in person today. On interacting with the petitioners, I am convinced that the 2nd petitioner had gone along with the 1st petitioner on her own free will. It is also informed that a notice of intended marriage under the Special Marriage Act is filed before the jurisdictional Marriage Registration Officer.

Circumstances being as above, it is unnecessary to continue the investigation in the crime registered under Section 57 (1)(a) of the Kerala Police Act or to produce the 2nd petitioner before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court. Hence, the Crl.MC is allowed and Annexure A4 FIR and further proceedings thereon, is quashed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE ARK APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 713/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC CERTIFICATE OF THE

1ST PETITIONER, AS AN AGE PROOF ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC CERTIFICATE OF THE

2ND PETITIONER, AS AN AGE PROOF ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE NO.

400633/CRCM01/GPO/2025/557 DATED 20.01.2025 ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 72/2025 DATED

17.01.2025 ON THE FILES OF POONTHURA POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER THAT SHE CAME WITH THE 1ST PETITIONER BY HER FREE WILL

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top