Nandakumar & Anr. vs The State of Kerala & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

20 April 2018

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 597 of 2018

Result

Allowed

Bench

A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan

Citation

[2018] 3 S.C.R. 1011 : 2018 INSC 383

Headnote

Habeas Corpus – Writ petition filed by respondent No. 4 alleging that his daughter was in illegal custody of appellant no. 1 and seeking direction to appellants to produce his daughter in the High Court – Case of writ petitioner was that the detenu and appellant no. 1 had not attained the marriageable age on the day when their marriage was solemnised and, therefore, his daughter was not legally wedded wife of appellant no. 1 – High Court accepted the prayer of petitioner and entrusted the custody of his daughter to him – On appeal, held: Both appellant no. 1 and writ petitioner’s daughter are major and have right to live together even outside wedlock – Legislature authorises ‘live-in relationship’ – The freedom of choice is on the girl as to with whom she wants to live – The girl having expressed her desire to be with appellant no. 1, the impugned order of High Court is set aside – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Matrimonial laws – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – ss.5, 12 – Constitution of India – Right of choice of an adult person.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: Both appellant No. 1 and writ petitioner’s daughter are major. Even if they were not competent to enter into wedlock (which position itself is disputed), they have right to live together even outside wedlock. ‘Live-in relationship’ is now recognized by the Legislature itself which has found its place under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The girl has expressed her desire to be with appellant No. 1. The directions of the High Court entrusting the custody of girl to respondent No. 4 is set aside. [Paras 10, 14 and 15][1015C; 1018-B-C] Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. & Ors. 2018 SCC Online SC 343 – relied on.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A. K. SIKRI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that appellant No. 1 has married Ms.Thushara. According to the appellant, this marriage was solemnised on 12.04.2017 at the Chakkulathukavu Bagavathi Temple situated in the Trivandrum District, Kerala. Insofar as Thushara is concerned, as on the date of marriage, she was admittedly 19 years of age and was, therefore, competent to enter into wedlock. It appears that after that marriage, she started living with appellant No. 1 as his wife. 3. Respondent No. 4 is th

View Subscription Plans →