Consent of family, clan, community not needed for two adults to marry: Jammu and Kashmir High Court

When two adults consensually choose each other as life partners, then the consent of their family members is not necessary, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh recently held [Kulsum Bano vs Union Territory of J & K]..Single-judge Justice MA Chowdhary said in cases where two adults decide to enter into wedlock, only the consent of the individuals involved needs to be considered with primacy."When two adults consensually choose each other as life partners, it is manifestation of their choice that is recognised under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Such right has sanction of constitutional law and once that is recognised, said right needs to be protected and it cannot succumb to conception of class honour or group thinking. Consent of family or community or clan is not necessary once two adult individuals agree to enter into wedlock and their consent has to be piously given primacy," the judge held..Consent of family or community or clan is not necessary once two adult individuals agree to enter into wedlock.Jammu and Kashmir High Court .The bench was seized of a plea filed by a girl and a boy, who got married as per the Muslim rituals but against the will of their families. They sought protection as they apprehended physical harm from their family members.The Court in its order passed on June 17, said that it is the obligation of the Constitutional courts to zealously guard the right to liberty of an individual as dignified existence of an individual has an inseparable association with liberty."Thus, it is emphatically clear that life and liberty sans dignity and choice is a phenomenon that allows hollowness to enter into the constitutional recognition of identity of a person. The choice of an individual is an extricable part of dignity, for dignity cannot be thought of where there is erosion of choice and no one should be permitted to interfere in the fructification of the said choice," the single-judge said.If right to express one’s own choice is obstructed, it would be extremely difficult to think of dignity in its sanctified completeness, he added..The judge further said that if the right to choose life partner is obstructed then it would lead to violation of the constitution."When two adults marry out of their volition, they choose their path; they consummate their relationship; they feel that it is their goal and they have the right to do so. And it can unequivocally be stated that they have the right and any infringement of the said right is a constitutional violation," the Court underlined.It, therefore, directed the respondent authorities to provide adequate security cover to the couple and act in accordance with the law. A further directive was issued to examine whether the girl and the boy are adults and whether the marriage was solemnised in strict compliance with the prevalent laws. If there is any first information report (FIR) against any of the petitioner(s), the police should go ahead with the investigation under rules, the Court clarified..Advocate Nadeem Gull appeared for the petitioners while Government Advocate Insha Rashid represented the State authorities..[Read Order]