Back
2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 17568
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
R.BASANT, K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ
MIDHUN MOHAN – Appellant
Versus
CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) 475/2010
Decisional autonomy of an adult women in marriage is paramount and should be respected, as outlined in the Special Marriage Act.
Headnote:
Detenue - Marriage - Special Marriage Act - Sections Discussed - This judgment emphasizes the respect for a woman's decisional autonomy when it comes to marriage under the Special Marriage Act, allowing her to choose to live with her husband despite familial opposition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed that his wife, Shibina, was being illegally detained by her father. The court allowed her to express her wishes regarding her custody.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that Shibina is an adult and capable of making her own decisions. Her choice to live with the petitioner was accepted, highlighting her rights under the Special Marriage Act.
Issues: Whether the alleged detenue's decision to live with her husband against her father's wishes is valid and should be respected.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the right of an adult woman to make her own decisions regarding her marital relationships and life choices.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed, and the alleged detenue is permitted to leave with her husband.
JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
This judgment must be read in continuation of the earlier orders passed by us in the matter resting with the last order dated 14.12.2010. According to the petitioner, the alleged detenue Shibina, a young woman, aged above 23 years (date of birth - 24.05.1987), is his wife, she having married him under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act on 18.08.2010. The petitioner apprehended that his wife, the alleged detenue, was being illegally detained and confined by the 3rd respondent, her father.
2. The alleged detenue came to Court on 14.12.2010.
We granted her time to think over the matter and give her final response to us. She went along with her father, the 3rd respondent. Today she has come to Court along with her father, the 3rd respondent. The petitioner is present He is represented by his counsel. The 3rd respondent is present. He is also represented by his counsel.
3. We interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially and later in the presence of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader were also present.
4. The alleged detenue states before us that she has taken the decision to go with the petitioner. We can easily perceive that it is a traumatic decision for her. We repeatedly wanted to ascertain from her whether it is her final, genuine and well thought out decision. An element of confusion in her is easily perceivable, she being now torn between her yearning to join her husband, the petitioner and the advice and counsel of her father, the petitioner, and other relatives. All the same, she asserts that she wants to live with the petitioner.
5. The alleged detenue is an adult major woman, aged above 23 ½ years. She is an educated woman. We accept her decisional autonomy. We are satisfied that her decision, that she must be permitted to leave with her husband, the petitioner, can safely be accepted by the Court.
6. In the result:
a) This Writ Petition is allowed;
b) The alleged detenue Shibina is permitted to leave the Court along with the petitioner, her husband, as per Ext.P1 certificate of marriage issued under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, as desired by her.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)
rtr/
