Need to respect decision to live together: SC

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday said it will always respect the decision of an adult couple to live together and not investigate a marriage just because the man and the woman belong to different religions.

“As a system and as an institution, we must respect the decision of a couple,” observed a bench of justices UU Lalit and Ajay Rastogi while refusing to entertain a petition by a woman’s parents, who claimed that their daughter, a Hindu, was forcibly converted to Islam and married to a Muslim man against her will.

“As a system, we should not be prying into the privacy of a couple if a man and woman want to live together. We have to respect their decision as adults,” the court remarked.

The bench relied on a state ment given by the woman to the police officers in Chandigarh where the couple lived together.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday said it would always respect the decision of an adult couple to live together and would not investigate a marriage just because the man and the woman belong to different religions. “As a system and as an institution, we must respect the decision of a couple,” observed a bench of justices Uday U Lalit and Ajay Rastogi while refusing to entertain a petition by a woman’s parents, who claimed that their daughter, a Hindu, had been forcibly converted to Islam and married to a Muslim man against her will.

The habeas corpus petition by the parents alleged that the woman was illegally confined by the man and there must be an investigation into the circumstances of their alleged marriage after forceful conversion. But the court remarked: “As a system, we should not be prying into the privacy of a couple if a man and woman want to live together. We have to respect their decision as adults.”

The bench relied on a statement given by the woman to the police officers in Chandigarh where the couple lived together.

The counter-affidavit, filed by advocate Shantanu Sagar for the Union territory of Chandigarh, attached the statement written by the woman, stating that she is living with the man of her own her free will and there is no coercion. The woman also said that her parents were against this alliance but she got married to the man in January and is now happily living with him.

The affidavit also adduced the couple’s marriage certificate registered in Jammu and Kashmir, which is the man’s home state, apart from their birth certificates that show the woman is 25 years old and the man 28.

“Look at her statement. She has reported to the police that she is married of her own will. Look at the way the letter has been written. The letters are all straight and there are no cuts. The letter shows its author is not under any kind of stress or coercion,” the bench said.

It asked the counsel for the parents if they were disputing her handwriting on the statement given to the police. “Since you are not doubting the handwriting, we cannot be of any assistance to you. A person, who is forced to make a statement, will not write like this. This is a clear case of a man or a woman being in complete sense and in control while writing a letter,” the bench told the parents’ counsel, Sudarsh Menon. As Menon said he could not dispute the handwriting, the court said that it is not a case for interference by the court and that the decision made by the couple should be respected. The counsel then opted to withdraw the petition.

In February, another bench in the top court had underscored the right of adults to choose their life partners while adding that it is time society learns to accept intercaste and interfaith marriages without hounding the couples. That bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul had observed that “educated young boys and girls are increasingly choosing their life partner on their own”, which might be viewed as a deviation by the society and the parents, but the police authorities were dutybound to keep such couples out of harm’s way if there was no violation of the law. In that instance, the bench was hearing a case of an intercaste marriage from Karnataka. The couple had approached the top court, seeking protection from a criminal case lodged by the woman’s father.

As a system, we should not be prying into the privacy of a couple if a man and woman want to live together.

SC BENCH