LEGAL ISSUE: Individual’s right to choose a partner and live with them, irrespective of the validity of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
CASE TYPE: Criminal (Habeas Corpus)
Case Name: Nandakumar & Anr. vs. The State of Kerala & Ors.
Judgment Date: April 20, 2018
Date of the Judgment: April 20, 2018
Citation: [2018] INSC 343
Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., Ashok Bhushan, J.
Can a High Court, in a Habeas Corpus petition, decide on the validity of a marriage and restrict a major woman’s freedom to choose her partner? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a couple where the husband was under the legal marriageable age. The court emphasized the fundamental right of an individual to choose their partner and live with them, irrespective of the validity of their marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The bench, comprising Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, delivered a unanimous judgment.
Case Background
The case originated from a Habeas Corpus petition filed by Respondent No. 4, the father of Ms. Thushara, in the High Court of Kerala. He claimed that his daughter had been missing since April 10, 2017, and was being illegally held by Appellant No. 1. Thushara, who was 19 years old at the time, had allegedly married Appellant No. 1 on April 12, 2017, at the Chakkulathukavu Bagavathi Temple. After the marriage, she started living with Appellant No. 1 as his wife. The father contended that Appellant No. 1 was below the legal marriageable age of 21, rendering the marriage invalid and his daughter in illegal custody. The High Court, based on the driving license produced by Appellant No. 1, determined that he was not of marriageable age on the date of the marriage and entrusted the custody of Thushara to her father.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| April 10, 2017 | Thushara reported missing by her father, Respondent No. 4. FIR lodged. |
| April 12, 2017 | Alleged marriage of Thushara and Appellant No. 1 at Chakkulathukavu Bagavathi Temple. |
| April 25, 2017 | Habeas Corpus petition filed by Respondent No. 4 in the High Court of Kerala. Notice issued to the appellants. |
| April 28, 2017 | Thushara produced before the High Court. High Court interacted with the parties and determined that Appellant No. 1 was not of marriageable age. Custody of Thushara was given to her father. |
| April 20, 2018 | Supreme Court allows the appeal and sets aside the High Court’s judgment. |
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court considered the following provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:
✓ Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, specifies the conditions for a Hindu marriage. Clause (iii) states that the bridegroom must have completed 21 years of age, and the bride 18 years, at the time of the marriage. The Court noted that this section was relevant to determine the validity of the marriage.
✓ Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, deals with voidable marriages. It states that a marriage can be annulled by a decree of nullity if it contravenes the condition specified in clause (iii) of Section 5. The Court clarified that a marriage where the bridegroom is under 21 years of age is not void but voidable.
The Court also acknowledged the legal recognition of ‘live-in relationships’ under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments:
- The High Court erred in examining the validity of the marriage in a Habeas Corpus petition.
- Thushara, being a major, has the right to live wherever she chooses and cannot be placed under the custody of her father.
- The marriage, at best, is voidable, not void, under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as Appellant No. 1 was below 21 years of age.
- Even if the marriage was invalid, both individuals have the right to live together.
State’s Arguments:
- The State supported the appellants’ position that a major has the right to live as per their choice.
- The State agreed that the marriage was not void, but voidable.
Respondent No. 4’s Arguments:
- Respondent No. 4 did not appear despite service of notice.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| High Court’s Approach |
|
Appellants |
| Individual Liberty |
|
Appellants, State |
| Validity of Marriage |
|
Appellants, State |
| Non-Appearance |
|
Respondent No. 4 |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:
✓ Whether the High Court was correct in examining the validity of the marriage in a Habeas Corpus petition?
✓ Whether the High Court was correct in entrusting the custody of a major woman to her father?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in examining the validity of the marriage in a Habeas Corpus petition? | No | The High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by going into the validity of the marriage in a Habeas Corpus petition, which is primarily concerned with illegal detention. |
| Whether the High Court was correct in entrusting the custody of a major woman to her father? | No | A major woman has the right to live wherever she chooses, and her custody cannot be entrusted to her father against her will. |
Authorities
Cases:
| Authority | Court | How the Authority was considered |
|---|---|---|
| Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. & Ors. [2018 SCC Online SC 343] | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case to emphasize that a Habeas Corpus writ is to ensure that no one is deprived of their liberty without the sanction of law. The Court reiterated that an individual’s choice is a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. |
| Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to highlight that a major is entitled to exercise their choice and freedom, and the courts cannot assume the role of parens patriae. |
Legal Provisions:
| Legal Provision | Description | How the Authority was considered |
|---|---|---|
| Section 5, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Specifies conditions for a Hindu marriage, including age requirements. | The Court considered this section to determine the validity of the marriage. |
| Section 12, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Deals with voidable marriages. | The Court clarified that a marriage where the bridegroom is under 21 years of age is voidable, not void. |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | Recognizes ‘live-in relationships’. | The Court noted that the legislature recognizes live-in relationships. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| High Court erred in examining the validity of the marriage in a Habeas Corpus petition. | Accepted. The Court held that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction. |
| Thushara, being a major, has the right to live wherever she chooses and cannot be placed under the custody of her father. | Accepted. The Court emphasized the right of a major to choose. |
| The marriage, at best, is voidable, not void, under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as Appellant No. 1 was below 21 years of age. | Accepted. The Court agreed that the marriage was not void. |
| Even if the marriage was invalid, both individuals have the right to live together. | Accepted. The Court noted the recognition of live-in relationships. |
| The State supported the appellants’ position that a major has the right to live as per their choice. | Accepted. The Court agreed with the State’s position. |
| The State agreed that the marriage was not void, but voidable. | Accepted. The Court agreed with the State’s position. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
✓ The Supreme Court relied on Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. & Ors. [2018 SCC Online SC 343]* to emphasize the importance of individual liberty and the right to choose a partner, stating that the writ of Habeas Corpus ensures that no one is deprived of their liberty without the sanction of law.
✓ The Supreme Court cited Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas* to reinforce that a major is entitled to exercise their choice and freedom, and the courts cannot assume the role of parens patriae.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fundamental principle of individual liberty and the right of a major to choose their partner. The Court emphasized that the High Court had erred in interfering with this right by examining the validity of the marriage and entrusting the custody of Thushara to her father. The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on constitutional principles and the need to protect individual autonomy.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Individual Liberty and Right to Choose | 60% |
| Constitutional Principles | 25% |
| Limitations of Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction | 15% |
Fact:Law Ratio:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s decision was more influenced by legal considerations (70%) than factual aspects (30%), as it primarily focused on the interpretation of constitutional rights and the scope of Habeas Corpus jurisdiction.
Logical Reasoning
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court emphasized that the High Court had erred in examining the validity of the marriage in a Habeas Corpus petition and in entrusting the custody of Thushara to her father.
The Court reasoned that:
✓ The High Court’s jurisdiction in a Habeas Corpus petition is limited to determining whether a person is illegally detained. It should not delve into the validity of a marriage.
✓ A major individual has the right to choose their partner and live with them, and this right cannot be curtailed by the courts.
✓ The marriage, even if not valid under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as the groom was under the legal age, is voidable and not void. Furthermore, the individuals have the right to live together even outside wedlock.
The Court quoted the following from the judgment:
“Even if they were not competent to enter into wedlock (which position itself is disputed), they have right to live together even outside wedlock.”
“It is obligatory to state here that expression of choice in accord with law is acceptance of individual identity. Curtailment of that expression and the ultimate action emanating therefrom on the conceptual structuralism of obeisance to the societal will destroy the individualistic entity of a person.”
“The duty of the Court is to uphold the right and not to abridge the sphere of the right unless there is a valid authority of law.”
There were no dissenting opinions. The decision was unanimous.
Implications for Future Cases:
This judgment reinforces the principle that the High Court, in a Habeas Corpus petition, should not interfere with the personal liberty of a major individual. It also clarifies that the validity of a marriage is not a matter to be decided in such proceedings. The judgment emphasizes the importance of individual choice and autonomy in matters of personal relationships.
Key Takeaways
- High Courts should not examine the validity of a marriage in a Habeas Corpus petition.
- A major individual has the right to choose their partner and cannot be placed under the custody of their parents against their will.
- Even if a marriage is not valid under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the individuals have the right to live together.
- The judgment reinforces the importance of individual liberty and autonomy in personal relationships.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the directions of the High Court entrusting the custody of Thushara to her father. The Court clarified that the freedom of choice would be of Thushara as to with whom she wants to live.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court cannot examine the validity of a marriage in a Habeas Corpus petition and that a major individual has the right to choose their partner and live with them, irrespective of the validity of their marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position on individual liberty and the limitations of Habeas Corpus jurisdiction.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Nandakumar vs. State of Kerala emphasizes the importance of individual liberty and the right of a major to choose their partner. The Court held that High Courts should not interfere with this right in Habeas Corpus proceedings by examining the validity of a marriage. This decision reinforces the constitutional principles of individual autonomy and personal choice.
Source: Nandakumar vs. State of Kerala