Keypoints:
- The top court said that youngsters face threats from elders and the courts have been coming to their aid.
- The top court in its recent verdict said that it hopes that the parents of the girl will have a better sense to accept the marriage and re-establish social interaction not only with her but even with her husband.
- Inter-caste marriages will possibly reduce caste and community tensions, the Supreme Court has said.
The Supreme Court has said that inter caste marriages will reduce caste and community tensions. It also noted that educated younger boys and girls are nowadays choosing their life partners which is a departure from earlier societal norms. The Supreme Court also said that the youngsters also face threats from the elders and the courts have been coming to the aid of these youngsters.
In recent verdict, the top court has said that it hopes that the parents of the girl will have a better sense to accept the marriage and re-establish social interaction not only with her but even with her husband.
The top court said, “Educated younger boys and girls are choosing their life partners which, in turn is a departure from the earlier norms of society where caste and community play a major role. Possibly, this is the way forward where caste and community tensions will reduce by such inter marriage but in the meantime these youngsters face threats from the elders and the Courts have been coming to the aid of these youngsters.”
The bench said it has been held in the 2017 verdict of the top court that the choice of an individual is an “inextricable part of dignity, for dignity cannot be thought of where there is erosion of choice”.
“Intimacies of marriage lie within a core zone of privacy, which is inviolable and even matters of faith would have the least effect on them. The right to marry a person of choice was held to be integral to Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the bench noted, while referring to Hadiya case verdict of 2018.”
Justice Kaul, who penned down the verdict on behalf of the bench, said that the intervention of this Court would really not have been required in the given facts of the case, if the investigating officer had conducted himself more responsibly in closing the complaint.
“…if the investigating officer really wanted to record the statement of the petitioner No.1 (girl), should have informed that he would visit her and recorded the statement instead of putting her under threat of action against petitioner No.2 (boy) to come to the police station,” the bench said.
