The Delhi High Court in the case observed and has stated that true love between two individuals, one or both of whom may be minor or minors on the verge of majority as the same cannot be controlled through rigours of law or State action.
The bench headed by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the case observed and has stated that the dilemma at times faced by the court can be of trying in order to justify the State or the Police action which is against an adolescent couple, who marry each other and continue to lead a peaceful life and raise a family, and respect for obeying the law of the land.
The court in the case stated that when the scales of justice have to be weighed, they are not always on the basis of mathematical precision or mathematical formulas, but at times, while one side of the scale carries the law, the other side of the scale may carry the entire life, thus, the happiness and future of toddlers, their parents and parents of their parents
Adding to it, the court stated that the scale that reflects and portrays such pure happiness sans any criminality will definitely equal to the scale carrying law as the application of law which is meant for maintaining rule of law.
The bench headed by Justice Sharma in the case observed while quashing the kidnapping and rape case registered which is against one Arif Khan who eloped with a minor girl and got married as per Muslim rites and ceremonies as they belonged to the same religion.
In the present case, the FIR was registered by the father of girl, thus, when she was recovered, she was five months pregnant. Further, She in the case refused to abort the child while stating that it was born out of her marital union and love for her husband.
Therefore, the court stated that the man was apprehended in June 2015 and remained in jail till April 2018 when he was granted bail.
The court observed that the couple was living together and another daughter was also born from their wedlock.
The bench headed by Justice Sharma in the case observed that the love story of the couple was ‘unfortunately interrupted’ by the entry of investigating agency which was to work as per existing law.
It has also been informed by the girl to the court that she had voluntarily entered into a consensual relationship with Khan and that she was 18 years of age at the time of incident and the same was disputed by the Delhi Police, since as per school records her age was shown less than 18 years.
The court noted that the girl was pregnant when Khan was arrested and had made a choice to continue pregnancy and give birth to the child.
The court stated that the parties herein had made a choice with themselves, even though law did not permit them to enter into a marital union.
The court observed that she supported the case of the petitioner Mr. Khan, at every stage, and not the case of the State and the parties have now been married for about nine years, and have been blessed with two daughters, and they are happily raising their children.
The bench of Justice Sharma in the case observed that the court’s role extends beyond a mere application and interpretation of statutes and involves an understanding of the implications of its decisions on individuals and the community at large.
The court stated that this court must weigh competing interests, while considering the impact of its decisions on the parties involved and the broader implications for justice, fairness, and social order.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that the FIR is not quashed and the same will result in affecting the future of the daughters born from this union which will result in failure of effective and real justice.
The counsel, Advocate Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Singh and Advocate Mr. Ranjan Kumar appeared for the Petitioner.
The counsel, Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for the State.