38.6c New Delhi, India, Saturday, December 20, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

No one can interfere in the marriage of two consenting adults: SC

By LawStreet News Network      05 February, 2018 01:23 AM      0 Comments

The Supreme Court today hearing a writ petition filed by NGO Shakti Vahini regarding the offence of honour killings, has said that Where two consenting adults agree to enter into matrimony, no individual rights, group rights or collective rights shall interfere therein or harass the couple.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice A. M. Khanwilkar has reaffirmed that the Khap Panchayats have no right to become conscience keepers of the society.

The Advocate, appearing for the Khap Panchayats had sought to submit The Khap Panchayats encourage intercaste and inter-religion marriages. Because of the skewed sex ratio in Haryana, as many 2.5 million local boys have married in other states. What the Khap Panchayats are opposed to is intra-gotra marriage. Say, I am a Hooda; it is an age old tradition that a Hooda shall not marry another Hooda. They are deemed to descend from a common ancestor and hence, are siblings. Even section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 prohibits marriage between Sapindas, which is calculated as within 5 degrees of relations from the fathers side and 3 degrees on the mothers side. Scientifically also it has been proven that such marriages have a disastrous impact on the genetics of the children.

But the Bench refused to change its stand and remarked that we are not concerned with the sapinda or gotra. We are only interested in the decision of two adults to get married. If any issue arises in respect of the marital status or property, the court shall be entitled to decide the same. The children may be legitimate or illegitimate, that may be for determination in a partition suit. Similarly, even the marriage may be null and void. But you keep out of it. No third party shall interfere. We have already made our stand thereon clear in Vikas Yadav v. State of UP.



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS


TOP STORIES

ranveer-singhs-dhurandhar-barred-from-release-across-gulf-states-amid-content-sensitivity-concerns
Trending CelebStreet
Ranveer Singh’s Dhurandhar Barred from Release Across Gulf States Amid Content Sensitivity Concerns

Ranveer Singh’s Dhurandhar fails to secure release approval in six GCC countries amid concerns over politically sensitive content.

14 December, 2025 12:40 AM
cash-debt-exceeding-20000-does-not-invalidate-cheque-dishonour-cases-under-section-138-of-the-ni-act-sc
Trending Judiciary
Cash Debt Exceeding ₹20,000 Does Not Invalidate Cheque Dishonour Cases Under Section 138 of the NI Act: SC [Read Order]

Supreme Court rules that cash loans above ₹20,000 do not invalidate cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the NI Act despite I-T Act violations.

14 December, 2025 02:23 AM
sc-upholds-10-year-sentence-for-woman-in-commercial-quantity-ganja-case-rejects-pleas-based-on-sampling-irregularities
Trending Judiciary
SC Upholds 10-Year Sentence for Woman in Commercial Quantity Ganja Case, Rejects Pleas Based on Sampling Irregularities [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court upholds 10-year sentence under NDPS Act in commercial ganja case, ruling that sampling irregularities alone do not vitiate prosecution.

14 December, 2025 02:30 AM
sc-upholds-bail-in-2010-jnaneswari-express-derailment-case-issues-directions-on-speedy-trials-under-uapa
Trending Judiciary
SC Upholds Bail in 2010 Jnaneswari Express Derailment Case, Issues Directions on Speedy Trials Under UAPA [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court upholds bail in the 2010 Jnaneswari Express derailment case while issuing sweeping directions to ensure speedy trials in UAPA cases.

14 December, 2025 02:39 AM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email