38.6c New Delhi, India, Wednesday, December 03, 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

forklifts-and-cranes-used-inside-factory-are-motor-vehicles-registration-and-tax-mandatory-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Forklifts And Cranes Used Inside Factory Are ‘Motor Vehicles’; Registration & Tax Mandatory: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

Kerala High Court rules that forklifts and cranes used inside factories are ‘motor vehicles’, requiring mandatory registration and tax under motor vehicle laws.

27 November, 2025 10:29 AM
loading-of-mineral-constitutes-transportation-us-21-4-of-the-mmdra-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Loading of Mineral Constitutes ‘Transportation’ U/S 21(4) Of The MMDRA: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

Kerala HC rules that loading minerals into a vehicle amounts to transportation under Section 21(4) of the MMDRA, upholding seizure for illegal mineral movement.

27 November, 2025 10:43 AM
sc-upholds-himachal-pradeshs-cancellation-of-tender-loi-sets-aside-high-court-order
Trending Judiciary
SC Upholds Himachal Pradesh’s Cancellation of Tender LoI, Sets Aside High Court Order [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court upholds Himachal Pradesh’s cancellation of a PDS tender LoI, ruling it created no enforceable rights and overturning the High Court order.

27 November, 2025 10:57 AM
chhattisgarh-hc-quashes-pg-medical-admission-rules-for-violating-article-14-rejects-institutional-domicile-preference-upholds-merit
Trending Judiciary
Chhattisgarh HC Quashes PG Medical Admission Rules for Violating Article 14, Rejects Institutional/Domicile Preference, Upholds Merit [Read Order]

Chhattisgarh High Court quashes PG medical admission rules, holding institutional and domicile-based preferences unconstitutional and affirming merit.

27 November, 2025 11:16 AM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email