Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court has recently held that the freedom of choice in marriage in accordance with law is an intrinsic part of Article 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, the High Court said that the police is expected to act expeditiously in cases of couples legally marrying out of their own free will and volition

A bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta noted, "Even questions of faith have no bearing on an individual’s freedom to choose a life partner and are essence of personal liberty."

The ruling comes in light of bail applications stemming from a case in which the complainant Raman was allegedly the victim of a murder attempt and a physical assault by a woman's (Menka's) family, after she had married him against her family's wish.

It has been alleged that the family members of the wife of Raman abducted him and his wife on December 22, 2021, and after brutally beating him up, his private parts were amputated with an axe. Later, he was thrown into a drain from where he was rescued by his brother and was admitted to AIIMS Trauma Centre.

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) submitted before the bench that after the solemnization of marriage when the couple returned to Delhi, the family members of the wife got infuriated and threatened to kill the husband. Thereafter, the family members abducted the couple and took them to their house.

APP further submitted that the grandmother of the wife exhorted that Raman “did not deserve any mercy” and directed other family members to chop off his private part to eliminate the entire problem. Thereafter, the family members present at the spot caught hold of Raman, assaulted him with an axe, and amputated his private part.

However, the counsel appearing for the accused while arguing on behalf of the sister and mother of Menka submitted that they have clean antecedents and no specific role has been attributed against them. Whereas, for the grandmother, it was argued that she is an old lady aged about 86 years and is suffering from various ailments.

The APP contended that so far as the grandmother is concerned, she is a habitual offender and has been involved in about 42 criminal cases. Additionally, she exhorted the other members of the family of Menka to amputate the private part of Raman.

In this light, the bench noted that as far as the sister of Menka is concerned, no active role appears to have been attributed to her and accepted her bail.. Whereas, the grandmother and mother Menaka are alleged to have participated in the assault and also exhorted family members for amputation of the private part of the Raman and both of them have criminal antecedents. The bench denied them bail.

Additionally, observing in view of the incident, the High Court noted, "In view of above, wherever the life and liberty of any individual is concerned, especially in cases of couples legally marrying out of their own free will and volition, the police is expected to act expeditiously and with sensitivity in accordance with law and take necessary measures for protection and safety of applicants concerned, if they apprehend hostility and concerns for their safety from different quarters including their own family members."

The bench also directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police for taking necessary measures for sensitizing the police officials in dealing with such complaints, while taking note of the fact that necessary steps for ensuring the safety and security of the victims/complainant were not initiated by the SHO, Police Station Rajouri Garden on the complaint of victims.

"The conduct of the concerned police officials in this regard is deprecable and needs to be looked into and necessary action taken. Any such lapse cannot be accepted on behalf of the police," the bench added.