REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Shafin Jahan Appellant

V/S

Asokan K.M. And Ors. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

WARE V. SANDERS [REFERRED TO]
COX V. HAKES [REFERRED TO]
GREENE V. SECY. OF STATES FOR HOME AFFAIRS [REFERRED TO]
IN RE F (MENTAL PATIENT: STERILISATION [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HOME AFFAIRS V. O'BRIEN [REFERRED TO]
THOMASSET V. THOMASSET [REFERRED TO]
A LOCAL AUTHORITY V. HB,MB,ML AND BL (BY THEIR CHILDREN'S GUARDIAN) [REFERRED TO]
A LOCAL AUTHORITY V. Y [REFERRED TO]
AC V. OC (A MINOR) [REFERRED TO]
DL V. A LOCAL AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
M V ELISABETH V. HARWAN INVESTMENT AND TRADING (P) LTD. [REFERRED TO]
RE EVE,1986 2 SCR 388 [REFERRED TO]
RE: SA (VULNERABLE ADULT WITH CAPACITY : MARRIAGE) [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICE V. J.W.B. AND S.M.B. [REFERRED TO]
HELLER V. DOE [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PEPSU NOW PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
DWARKA NATH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER SPECIAL CIRCLE D WARD KANPUR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. RAM CHANDRA DEV:MOHAN PRASAD SINGH DEO [REFERRED TO]
UNDER ARTICLE 143 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA; IN THE MATTER VS. PRESIDENT OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
NARESH SHRIDHAR MIRAJKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
KANU SANYAL VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DARJEELING [REFERRED TO]
GIAN DEVI VS. SUPERINTENDENT NARI NIKETAN DELHI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. N M THOMAS [REFERRED TO]
J P SHARMA VS. VINOD KUMAR JAIN [REFERRED TO]
CHARAN LAL SAHU RAKESH SHROUTI RAJKUMAR KESWANI NASRIN BI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ROSHAN DEEN VS. PREETI LAL [REFERRED TO]
T K RANAGARAJAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
LATA SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
ANUJ GARG VS. HOTEL ASSOCIATION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ARUNA RAMCHANDRA SHANBAUG VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN DASS VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
UMMU SABEENA VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
GIRISH VS. RADHAMONY K. [REFERRED TO]
JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (READ.) VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
SONI GERRY VS. GERRY DOUGLAS [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rainbow is described by some as the autograph of the Almighty and lightning, albeit metaphorically, to be the expression of cruelty of otherwise equanimous "Nature". Elaborating the comparison in conceptual essentiality, it can be said that when the liberty of a person is illegally smothered and strangulated and his/her choice is throttled by the State or a private person, the signature of life melts and living becomes a bare subsistence. That is fundamentally an expression of acrimony which gives indecent burial to the individuality of a person and refuses to recognize the other's identity. That is reflection of cruelty which the law does not countenance. The exposÃ ((THELAW)) of facts in the present case depicts that story giving it a colour of different narrative. It is different since the State that is expected to facilitate the enjoyment of legal rights of a citizen has also supported the cause of a father, an obstinate one, who has endeavoured immensely in not allowing his daughter to make her own choice in adhering to a faith and further making Everestine effort to garrotte her desire to live with the man with whom she has entered into wedlock. The thought itself is a manifestation of the idea of patriarchal autocracy and possibly self-obsession with the feeling that a female is a chattel. It is also necessary to add here that the High Court on some kind of assumption, as the impugned judgment and order would reflect, has not been appositely guided by the basic rule of the highly valued writ of habeas corpus and has annulled the marriage. And that is why the order becomes a sanctuary of errors.

(2.) On 08.03.2018, this Court had allowed the appeal passing the following order:

(3.) Presently, we proceed to state the reasons.

Click here to view full judgment.

SHAFIN JAHAN Vs. ASOKAN K.M. & ORS.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address