The Allahabad High Court recently observed that Indian families have not yet been able to accept the choice of their children when it comes to the selection of their life partners.
“Their family also stumbles on the issues of caste, religion and monetary status of the partner chosen by their child and this sometimes leads to their children absconding from home for marrying the person of their own choice; sometimes to suicide and further relationship contacted in hurry to fill the emotional lacuna left by the earlier unsuccessful relationship,” said the court.
The bench of Justice Siddhartha observed so while dealing with a bail plea moved in an abetment to suicide case. The bail application was filed by a man accused of abetting his alleged girlfriend’s suicide. The case was registered under Sections 306, 504 and 506 of the IPC.
The court noted that in the instant matter, the deceased hopped from one affair to the other with a number of boys and later on account of resistance of her family or incompatibility with the boys she befriended, she committed suicide in frustration.
Taking note of the facts of the case, the single judge bench opined that “the Indian society is in the state of confusion whether to permit their young children to adopt the western norms or to keep them firmly within the bounds of Indian culture”.
The court added that due to this cultural dilemma, young generation, unaware of the consequences of following the Western culture is entering into relationships, and after denial of social recognition to their choice of partner they become disillusioned and behave, sometimes against society, sometimes against their parents.
It further asserted that due to the situations mentioned above, the following four types of cases are pouring into the courts:
(i) Commission of offence of rape on false promise of marriage;
(ii) Commission of offence of instigation to commit suicide;
iii) Commission of offence of murder or offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder with the help of an estranged friend or his companions; and
(iv) Cases of false implication regarding other major and minor offences arising out of such relationships
Regarding the case at hand, the court took into account the submissions made by the accused’s counsel that the investigation in the case was one-sided and the case of the accused’s side had been ignored.
Therefore, while keeping in view the uncertainty regarding the conclusion of trial and accused’s fundamental right under Article 21, the court allowed him bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Comments
0 comment