Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2003
  6. /
  7. January

Madhu Priya Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|05 September, 2003

JUDGMENT / ORDER

ORDER
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
2. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, State of U.P. through Home Secretary. The District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police, Basti to protect and safeguard the petitioner's life and liberty, and restraining them as also respondent No. 4 from harassing or victimizing the petitioners.
3. In para 4 of the petition it is stated that the petitioner No. 1 Madhu Priya Singh was born on 13.12.1981 and thus she is about 22 years of age. Her High School Certificate showing her date of birth as 13.12.1981 is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The petitioner No. 1 has done her B.Sc. (Home Science) in 2001, and copy of her mark sheet is Annexure 2 to the petition. She has also done one year's computer course and was working as a Counseller at the Aptech Computer Training Institute, Basti.
4. It is stated in para 7 that the petitioner No. 2 was born on 16.5.1979, and thus, he is about 24 years of age. A true copy of his High School Certificate is Annexure 3 to the petition. He has done his B.Com./Bachelor of Journalism and Mass Communication from the University of Allahabad and is presently working as Sub-Editor in Amar Ujala, Kanpur. It is stated in para 11 that the petitioners are of different castes. While the petitioner No, 1 is Kshatriya (Thakur) by caste, the petitioner No. 2 is Brahmin by caste. However, owing to the difference in their castes, the father and family of petitioner No. 1 were resolutely opposed to the marriage of the petitioners and they have threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. The petitioner No. 2 was threatened with loss of life and limbs if he did not detach himself from the petitioner No. 1. It is alleged in para 15 that the parents of petitioner No. 1 were planning to marry her to a boy, whose family was based in Rewa, Madhya Pradesh against her wish, and hence she quietly slipped away on 25.7.2003 and contacted petitioner No. 2 and they left Basti to get married of their own free Will.
5. It is alleged in paras 17 to 20 that they went to Arya Samaj, Krishna Nagar, Prayag and got married by Arya Samaj rites and now they are husband and wife. However, they have been threatened as stated in paras 22 to 25 of the writ petition and hence they have filed this writ petition.
6. Sweeping revolutionary charges are taking place in Indian society today. While in the traditional Indian society, marriage of a boy and girl was arranged Within the same caste and same religion, now these feudal barriers .are breaking up, particularly in the younger section of the society. This Court approves this trend as it is in the national interest.
7. In our opinion, inter-caste and inter religious love marriages are in the national interest as they would leave to national integration. At present our society is divided on the basis of castes and communities, due to which the feudal forces of casteism and communalism create hatred and discord among our people, and the vested interests utilize this for their nefarious policy of divide and rule and vote bank politic.
8. In our opinion inter-caste and inter religious love marriages will also do away with the great evil of dowry which is blot in our society today. Whatever may have been the utility of the caste system at a certain stage of our historical and social development, there can be no manner of doubt that it is today a great evil and a curse on our society. In fact it is an obstacle to our nation's progress, and if we wish to progress it must be destroyed as quickly as possible, so that we really become Indians rather than remains as Pandits, Thakurs, Yadavs, Jatavs, Harijans, Sheikhs, Saiyyads, Pathans etc. We must really become one nation if we want to progress. Our national aim must be to become a modern, powerful industrial State so as to face the competition of other nations, and get respect in the world community.
This is a free, democratic and secular country. Under the Indian Majority Act, 1875 , a person who becomes 18 years of age is called a major, and once a person becomes a major, that person can go wherever he/she likes and marry whomever he/she likes irrespective of caste or religion. This right of a major to marry whomever he/she likes is in our opinion a part of the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Once a person becomes a major the law deems that that person knows about his/her welfare and has developed mental maturity for this purpose. Hence he/she can go anywhere and marry anyone of his/her Will. If the parents of a major girl/boy are unhappy about her/his desire to marry outside the caste or religion the most they can do is to severe social relations from their son/daughter, but they cannot threaten that person or beat up or threaten, confine or kill that person because that would be taking the law into one's hands and will be a criminal offence under various provisions of the I.P.C. Terrorizing or harassing or threating to kill or attack a person who marries outside the caste/ religion is not only illegal but is also an act of barbarism committed by feudal, backward persons, and such acts shall not be tolerated by this Court any longer.
9. We regret to say that the authorities seldom take any action in the matter even when reported to them and thereby they abdicate their duty to uphold the law. A large number of such cases have been reported particularly from western Districts of U.P. e.g. Meerut, Muzaffarnagar etc. e.g. where a Jat boy wanted to marry a Harijan girl, and both were killed by their own family members or members of their castes and this was regarded honour killing. Such incidents widely occur in Pakistan, but we will not tolerate such acts to take place in our country with impunity. 'Honour' killing is nothing but cold blooded, brutal and ghastly murder, and there is nothing honourable about it. Those who are found guilty of committing it must be given death sentence by the Court, treating it as rarest of the rare cases.
10. We have to take strong action in this matter if we want our country to progress and become a powerful, modern, industrial State otherwise we will remain backward and feudal and foreign countries will dominate over us, and humiliate and exploit us,
11. The petitioners are both majors and there is no dispute that they are voluntarily living with each other, even though they are of different castes. Hence nobody can interfere with their lives. Hence we direct the authorities to see it that nobody harasses or interferes with the petitioners' lives in any manner and if anyone does so strong action has to be taken against that person.
12. Since a large number of petitions of this nature e.g. petitions relating to inter-caste and inter-religious love marriages are coming before us, we have expressed our views on this matter strongly so that everyone in the State knows that how to conduct themselves with regards to such matters. The administrative and police authorities must see to it that anyone who threatens or attacks or intimidates or confines a major who wants to marry outside the caste or religion is prevented from doing so and criminal proceedings are instituted against that person.
13. This writ petition is, therefore, allowed with the above directions. The presence of the Principal, Home Secretary and D.G.P. are dispensed with. However, they are directed to issue circulars to all the District Magistrates, Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police in the Districts of U.P. enclosing copy of this judgment, and direct its strict compliance.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Madhu Priya Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
05 September, 2003
Judges
  • M Katju
  • R Tripathi