Laxmibai Chandaragi V. The State of Karnataka

Case- Laxmibai Chandaragi v. The State of Karnataka[1]

Citation- (2021) 3 SCC 360

Date of judgement: February 8, 2021

Appellate: Laxmibai Chandaragi b. and another

Respondent: State of Karnataka and others

A bench of judges: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Hrishikesh Roy

FACTS

In this case, a writ petition was filed by Santosh Yadav and Laxmibai Chandaragi under Article 32 of the Indian constitution. Both of them were getting threats from their family as they got married in court against the wishes of their family. Laxmibai was from Hubli, Bangalore, and Santosh Yadav was from Delhi. As the marriage was against the wishes of their family and society so, they were infringing their right to choose a life partner under the right to privacy[2].

In this case, the writ petition was filed; a complaint was filed in Murgod police station, Savadatti taluk, Belagavi district by Mr. Basappa Chandragi who was the father of Laxmi bai chandaragi.  The complaint was filed by him stating that his daughter has been missing since 14.10.2020. Then fir was registered (FIR NO. 226/2020), the investigation was started after recording the statement of the father Mr. Basappa Chandaragi, and her mother’s, and other relatives by the investigating officer. The investigating officer gathers all the call details. While investigating it came out that laxmibai Chandaragi without informing her parents had taken flight from Hubli to Bangalore, and from Bangalore to Delhi. She married Mr. Santosh Yadav without the consent of her parents, after reaching Delhi.

She decided to share the details of marriage by sending their marriage certificate on 15.10.2020 through a social media platform i.e., WhatsApp.  The investigation officer visited Mr. Santosh Yadav’s house in Ghaziabad after receiving the details from the parents. After a visit to Mr. Santosh’s house in Ghaziabad it came to the knowledge of the investigating officer that his parents do not have any information where Mr. Santosh is. Laxmibai converse in with the investigating officer expressing that she is living with Santosh and have got married. The investigating officer compelled Laxmibai to give statement in Murgod police station so that police can close the case.

Through the mean of written communication i.e. letter Laxmibai informed the investigating officer that she won’t be able visit in the police station as she has threat to her life from her parents. However, the investigating officer did not considered the sensitivity of the case and forced Laxmibai to travel to Karnataka to record her statement at the police station. Moreover, it was indicated by the investigating officer that if there is failure by the Laxmibai to appear in the police station, her parents may file false complaints against the petitioners. The investigating officer annexed that, in such a case, the police officers would charge her husband i.e. Mr. Santosh Yadav with kidnapping and arrest him.

ISSUES RAISED

• Is consent required from the parents of two adult individuals to get married of their own wish or choice?
• Does Article 21 of the Constitution of India cover the right to choose one’s partner?
• Are there any directions to control such sensitive cases for police officers?
• Can a police officer threaten an individual to file a false accusation and get a statement recorded by using force?

CONTENTIONS PRESENTED BY APPELLATE

• It was argued that even after asserting the intent for not visiting the police station by the petitioners. A letter was written by the Petitioner to the investigation officer informing that she has been receiving threats from her family members. Despite the intent of the Petitioner, the investigating officer did not close the case.
• Furthermore it was argued that in the conversation between Laxmibai and the investigating officer, it was identified that the investigating officer was forcing Laxmibai to visit Murgod police station, Karnataka, otherwise a false case would be filed by family members against Mr. Santosh and which will surely affect his job.
• Petitioners were also threatened by the investigation officer that if Laxmibai does not return home, they will also file an accusation of stealing things from home and this affect Santosh’s job.
• The argument was ended by the prosecutor by stating that the parents of Laxmibai were against the marriage, but on the other hand, parents of Mr. Santosh had no objection to their marriage decision.

CONTENTIONS PRESENTED BY DEFENDANT

• The defendant argued that since the parents of Laxmibai were not able to find their daughter so the investigating officer lodged the FIR.
• Moreover, it was stated that Laxmibai was called by the investigation officer to visit the Murgod police station to record the statement because the investigating officer wanted to close the case.
• The argument of the Appellant was also opposed by denying the accusation of threatening Laxmibai by investigation officer.

RATIONALE

In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India[3], it was perceived at under the extension of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution the person has the right to choose one’s life partner. Also the right to privacy under Article 21 covers the personal matrimonial affairs of the individuals.

In Shakti Vahini v. Union of India[4], it was held that ones the consent of the two individuals who are getting married is there for the marriage it will prevail over the consent of their family members and the society. In this case, the court of law laid down that it is to punish two consenting people from marrying.

In Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K M & Ors[5], it was observed by the court of law that society was transpiring a great transformation. The same was observed by the court of law in the case Lata Singh V. State of U.P[6].

In Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar[7], it was observed by the court of law that the choice of an individual is an inextricable portion of dignity and such choice can’t be surrendered under any class honour or group thinking.

DEFECTS OF LAW

The case was not handled competently by the Investigating officer. The conversation of the Investigating officer was already held with Laxmibai and she clearly told that she was in a marital relationship with Santosh and she informed the investigating officer that she won’t be able visit in the police station as she has threat to her life from her parents. Investigating officer could simply record Laxmi’s statement rather than forcing her about filing a false complaint against her husband which would surely affect his job.

In contemporary era where the rising generations who are well educated are choosing their life partners of their own choice which is inimical to the old social norms where caste and religion played an influential role and now these young people are facing threat from their family members and the society.

The Apex court clearly stated that under article 21 of the Indian Constitution the individuals have right to choose their life partner and if the two individuals have their free consent to enter into wedlock the approval of elders is of no significance. In this case, the marriage of the two capable petitioners i.e. Laxmibai and Santosh Yadav, who are Hindus and majors, was opposed by the Laximibai’s parents, on the other hand Mr. Santosh’s parents had no objection with their marriage. This illustrates that if the petitioners have a strong education, they are more likely to be conscious of their actions and certain of their love for one another. The reason of Laximibai’s parents not to accept her husband is nothing new which we noticed but it needs to be revised as everyone has the right to choose one’s life partner.

INFERENCE

The Court of law observed that the consent of family or society was not required for two consenting adults to enter into a marriage of their own will. The Court further held that police authorities should formulate appropriate regulations and implement training programmes for police authorities for investigating socially sensitive cases.

The judgment given in this case is best and finest for all cases having similar situations where children are threatened by their parent from choosing and marrying the person of their own choice and compel them to marry the person chosen by their parents. Even now most of the parents do not consider the choice of their children and force them to marry the person of their own choice. After the judgment given in this case, it is the part of the extended view of Article 21 where the person has the right to choose one’s partner and marry them.

This judgment is appreciable as it favors the right to choose the life partner and upholds the principle of personal autonomy. It acknowledges individual’s rights to make decisions about their own lives, where the consent of their family and society is of no importance. It supports the idea that everyone should have the freedom to choose a life partner based on their own values and desires.

REFERENCES

• theedulaw.com, https://portal.theedulaw.com/SingleArticle?title=landmark-judgment–laxmibai-chandaragi-v.the-state-of-karnataka#:~:text=This%20is%20the%20Latest%20landmark,from%20traditional%20norms%20of%20society (June 9, 2024)
• ccgnlud.org, https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org/case/laxmibai-chandaragi-b-vs-the-state-of-karnataka (June 9, 2024)
• legalserviceindia.com, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-12973-case-comment-on-laxmibai-chandragi-v-s-state-of-karnataka.html (June 9, 2024)
• mylawman.co.in, https://www.mylawman.co.in/2022/07/case-brief-laxmibai-chandaragi-v-state.html (June 9, 2024)

[1] Write petition (crl.) no. 359 of 2020

[2] Defined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

[3] K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.

[4] Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192.

[5] Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K M & Ors. (2018) 16 SCC 408.

[6] Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 475.

[7] Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar (2017) 4 SCC 397.