Case Note & Summary
The case involved a writ petition filed by Laxmibai Chandaragi and another against the State of Karnataka concerning the handling of a missing person complaint lodged by the father of Laxmibai. The complaint stated that Laxmibai had been missing since October 14, 2020, and an FIR was registered. During the investigation, it was revealed that Laxmibai had traveled to marry Santosh Singh Yadav without informing her parents. Despite her informing the police of her marriage and feeling threatened by her family, the investigation officer insisted she return to Karnataka to record her statement. The petitioners sought protection from threats and highlighted the duality of jurisdiction due to their residence in Uttar Pradesh. The court found the investigation officer's conduct inappropriate, criticizing the insistence on the petitioner's presence at the police station under threat of false charges. The court underscored the importance of individual choice in marriage and the need for police to handle such sensitive cases with care. Ultimately, the court quashed the FIR, urging the petitioner's parents to accept the marriage and foster social interaction. The writ was disposed of with a hopeful outlook for the future.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Marry - Primacy of Individual Choice - Constitution of India, Article 21 - The court emphasized that the consent of family or community is not necessary for marriage between two adults, affirming the right to marry as integral to individual dignity. The court criticized the investigation officer's conduct in compelling the petitioner to return to Karnataka, which was deemed inappropriate and threatening (Paras 10-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the investigation officer acted appropriately in handling the case of a missing person who had married without parental consent.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court quashed the FIR No.226/2020 registered at Murgod Police Station, Belagavi District, Karnataka, stating that no further statement was required from the petitioners and urged the parents of petitioner No.1 to accept the marriage.
Law Points
- Right to marry
- duality of jurisdiction
- police conduct
- dignity of individual
- inter-marriage
- Article 21
