The Case of Laxmibai Chandaragi B vs The State of Karnataka (2021)

August 7, 2024
court hammer books judgment law concept

The main issues in laxmibai chandaragi b vs the state of karnataka is the freedom of an individual to right to marry the person of their choice after reaching legal marriage age and the role that parents and the community play in a person’s marriage decisions. India has a large number of marriage cases, all of which are very distinct from one another.

laxmibai chandaragi b vs the state of Karnataka Case Facts

  • In this case, the Supreme Court looked at the duties placed on law enforcement officials and officers when they look into situations affecting married couple rights, which calls for a particular level of social awareness.
  • After Petitioner 1 (the woman) and Petitioner 2 (the husband) were married in Delhi, the petitioners moved to Ghaziabad to live together as husband and wife. Petitioner 1’s parents and uncle disapproved of the marriage and threatened the petitioners on multiple occasions.
  • Petitioner 1’s parents then reported their son missing by lodging a complaint with the Murgod police station in Karnataka. The petitioners were located at their Ghaziabad residence by the police station’s intelligence officer (IO).
  • Petitioner 1 gave the IO a copy of her marriage license. She disclosed to the IO the threats the petitioners had received from her family as well as the knowledge and displeasure of her parents regarding her marriage. She emphasized that she was not willing to go to Karnataka in order to appear at the police station for these reasons.
  • Nevertheless, the IO forced Petitioner 1 to fly to Karnataka in order to record her statement at the police station, disregarding the delicate nature of the matter.
  • Additionally, the IO stated that Petitioner 1’s parents might make up a complaint against the petitioners if she didn’t show up at the police station. The IO continued by saying that Petitioner 2 would be arrested and charged with kidnapping by the police in such a situation.
  • The petitioners, who were offended by the IO’s acts, brought a writ case before the Supreme Court.

laxmibai chandaragi b vs the state of Karnataka Issues

  • Is it possible for the investigating officer to have someone go to a particular police station in order to provide a statement?
  • Is it legal for a police officer to threaten someone with unfounded accusations if they disobey orders?
  • Do parents have any influence over their child’s ability to select a life mate who is of legal marriageable age?
  • Does culture have the power to influence someone’s decision to marry?

Contentions by the Parties

Petitioner:

  • The petitioners’ knowledgeable attorney contended that even though the IO had repeatedly ordered the woman (petitioner no. 1) to return to her hometown and have her statement recorded at the Murgod Police Station, she had made it clear in writing to the IO that doing so could put her life in danger. Despite this, the IO had not recorded her statement through another channel, so the case could not be closed.
  • He continued by saying that information on the IO’s claimed threats to bring false charges against the man (petitioner no. 2) and lady (petitioner no. 1) was obtained from the written transcript of their correspondence that was provided to the court.
  • He concluded by stating that the lady’s parents (petitioner number. 1) were against their daughter’s marriage (petitioner no. 1) to petitioner no. 2.

Respondent:

  • The respondent side’s learned attorney filed an appeal in court, claiming that when petitioner no. 1 vanished on October 14, 2020, the petitioner’s father filed a complaint with the Murgod Police Station. As a result, the police filed a first information report (FIR) at that time, in accordance with their official duties.
  • He went on to say that in order to complete the legal process and record the woman’s statement, which was a prerequisite for concluding the case, the IO forced Petitioner No. 1 to relocate to her hometown. Therefore, by requiring Petitioner No. 1, IO fulfilled his obligation to end the matter and had no intention of failing to do so.
  • The respondent’s attorney rejected the allegation that the investigating officer ever threatened the petitioner.
  • According to the responder, parental consent is crucial when it comes to their son or daughter’s marriage.

laxmibai chandaragi b vs the state of Karnataka Judgment

  • The couple won their case in the Supreme Court. The IO’s counseling was mandated by the court, which also dismissed the parents’ FIR.
  • It gave police departments eight weeks to develop policies and training materials for addressing cases that are socially sensitive.
  • The court determined that the freedom to select one’s life partner and right to marry is guaranteed by article 21 of the indian constitution and should take precedence over caste, social conventions, and parental approval.

With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!

For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf

Leave a Comment