Marriage by one's choice is not a modern phenomenon; part of Indian History: Punjab & Haryana HC
An FIR had been lodged against the petitioner by his wife's father as the couple had married by their own choice against the families' wishes.
The Punjab and Haryana recently quashed an FIR lodged against a man for kidnapping and forcing marriage with a girl. Court said that a man can be punished for commission of an offence, however, he cannot be punished just because his act is not liked by anyone else.
The bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal passed the order on the plea moved by the man who submitted that he and his wife had married each other by choice against their families' wishes and the case had been lodged in retaliation to that by his wife's father.
While granting relief to the man, the court said, "In Indian culture, irrespective of caste and religion, marriage is neither compromise nor a contract but it is a sacrosanct knot of two families".
Court added that Swayamvar i.e. marriage by your own choice is not a modern phenomenon and its roots can be traced in ancient history including Ramayana, and Mahabharata.
"Our Constitution in terms of Article 21 is enforcing this human right as a fundamental right", Court emphasized.
The counsel for the petitioner had informed the court that the couple's marriage was solemnized in July 2019 and soon after that, they had to move a plea seeking protection of their lives and liberty which was allowed by the high court.
He had further submitted that the man and his wife now have two children together and in the present case, the man had been already allowed anticipatory bail by the high court.
The counsel for the wife had also submitted that she is staying with the man and had no objection to the quashing of the FIR.
Court observed, "Object of law whether customary, religious or made by the legislature, is to protect life and liberty of every human being. Object of law is not to disturb settled life of anyone without his fault".
Court highlighted that in the case at hand, both the persons were major and were happily cohabiting. "...no one including courts and law enforcing agencies have right to disturb their life without their fault," Court said.
"With a pending criminal case, nobody can lead a happy life...Continuance of criminal proceedings is not only going to disturb life of the petitioner but also there are all possibilities of disturbance in life of respondent No. 3 and their children," Court furhter noted.
Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the court opined that the present petition deserved to be allowed.
Case Title: Tek Chand v. State of Punjab and others