Summary
The Supreme Court quashed proceedings on a missing-person FIR after an adult woman confirmed her voluntary marriage and expressed fear of returning to her parents’ locality. It condemned police threats of cases against her husband to compel her attendance. Adult marital choice does not require family or community approval. The Court called for counselling of the investigating officer and guidelines and training for police handling such sensitive cases.
Issues
- Whether police could compel an adult woman who confirmed her voluntary marriage to return to the local station by threatening proceedings against her husband.
- What corrective relief and police training directions were required.
Provisions considered
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaChoice of a spouse, privacy and personal autonomy were treated as integral to dignity and constitutional liberty, giving primacy to the consenting adults’ decision. (¶¶ 10, 11)
Held
- Consent of family, community or clan is unnecessary when two adults freely choose marriage. Their individual choice and dignity must receive primacy. (¶¶ 8, 10, 11)
- After receiving the marriage certificate and speaking to the woman, the officer could have recorded her statement where she lived. Threatening a false case and arrest of her husband to secure her return was strongly deprecated, and the officer was to receive counselling. (¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 7, 12)
- Police authorities were expected within eight weeks to take action towards guidelines and training programmes for handling such socially sensitive cases. (¶ 13)
- In view of the petitioners’ statements before the Court, no further statement was required in this case and proceedings pursuant to the missing-person FIR were quashed. (¶¶ 14, 15)
Result
Writ petition disposed of by quashing proceedings pursuant to the missing-person FIR and issuing directions concerning police counselling, guidelines and training.