New Delhi, 25 October 2022: The Delhi High Court, in a recent judgment, has stated that the ability to choose a life partner, which is the foundation of personal liberty, has no influence on “issues of faith,” and that freedom of choice in marriage in conformity with the law is an integral aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution.
This came in a case when a couple had been married against the woman’s family’s desires and the man had subsequently been accused of being abused by his wife’s family.
The court made a point of outlining the police’s role in such situations, holding that “wherever the life and liberty of any individual are concerned, especially in cases of couples legally marrying of their own free will and volition, the police is expected to act swiftly and sensitively in accordance with the law and take necessary measures for protection and safety of applicants concerned, if they apprehend hostility and concerns for their safety from different quarters.”
On October 13, a single-judge bench presided over by Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta heard three bail requests made by the relatives of a woman who had wed in December against their will.
When the pair returned to Delhi after getting married, the wife’s relatives were angry and even threatened to murder him. The couple went to Rajouri Garden police station that evening to ask for protection. They were allegedly kidnapped by his wife’s relatives as they were leaving the police station and transported to their home, where the man was severely assaulted and had his privates amputated with an axe.
According to the prosecution, after being attacked, the complainant was pushed into a drain and saved by his brother before being taken to the AIIMS Trauma Center.
It was further revealed that the woman’s grandmother “exhorted that the complainant does not deserve any pity and instructed other family members to slice off the complainant’s private area in order to erase the entire problem,” according to the prosecution. According to the prosecution, the woman’s mother and aunt “exhorted that the complainant’s private area be sliced off.”
The prosecution had stated that the grandmother was a persistent offender who has 42 criminal charges pending against her which vigorously opposed the bail applications. They claimed that she encouraged the other members of her family to amputate the complainant’s private area, together with her mother. Although “no overt act appears to have been traced to” the sister, the prosecution claimed that she did nothing to safeguard the victims.
Granting bail to the sister, the HC noted that no active role was attributed to her, however, both the mother and grandmother were denied bail for alleged participation in the assault, “It also cannot be ignored that both petitioners (mother and grandmother) have criminal antecedents and the petitioner (mother) in fact was declared as a proclaimed offender (P.O) during the initial stages of the proceedings,” noted the Delhi HC.
“In the facts and circumstances, considering the grave nature of offense, ghastly manner in which the assault was made and considering their role in the incident, no grounds for bail are made out in respect of petitioner/accused (mother) and (grandmother),” the court said.
The high court further observed the negligence of the relevant police officials in the case, “It is unfortunate that in this case 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, taking it in a routine course while they were expected to act with promptitude.”
The Delhi Police Commissioner must receive a copy of the High Court’s ruling so that they can take the necessary steps to train police officers on how to handle these complaints “under intimation to this Court, within a term of four weeks,” the High Court further stated.
Discover more from tennews.in: National News Portal
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
