Summary
The Court directed that the woman be enabled to join the appellant after an independent inquiry confirmed her free choice to live with him. It rejected a public-declaration requirement for Tamil Nadu self-respect marriages that was absent from Section 7A. Lawyers could act as friends or relatives witnessing such marriages, but should not undertake solemnisation in their professional capacity as advocates.
Issues
- Whether Section 7A required a public declaration beyond the statutory mode of solemnisation.
- What role advocates could perform in such marriages.
- What relief followed the woman’s independently verified wish to reside with the appellant.
Provisions considered
- Section 7A, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as amended in Tamil NaduThe statutory presence of relatives, friends or others did not justify adding a public-solemnisation requirement; the contrary High Court view was rejected. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9)
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaAdults’ free choice in intimate association was protected against an added public-declaration requirement that could expose them to coercion or danger. (¶ 8)
Held
- The independent report and recorded statement established that the woman wished to live with the appellant voluntarily. Respondents were directed to ensure that she could join him. (¶¶ 3, 4)
- Section 7A did not impose an additional requirement of public declaration. Adding one narrowed the statute and jeopardised adults whose families or communities opposed their choice. The contrary view in S. Balakrishnan Pandiyan was held erroneous. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8)
- Advocates should not, acting professionally as counsel or advocates, undertake or volunteer to solemnise marriages. Their ability to participate as friends or relatives witnessing a marriage was not excluded. (¶ 9)
Result
Appeal allowed. Respondents directed to ensure that the woman joins the appellant in accordance with her freely expressed choice. Pending applications disposed of.