IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2014
: PRESENT :
HON’BLE MR. D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WRIT PETITION No. 8881 / 2014 (GM-RES-PIL)
B A VANI
ADVOCATE, W/O S SRIKANTH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
ROLL NO. KAR/4826/99
R/T “LOKAMBA NILAYA”, NEAR GOVERNMENT
MODEL SERICULTURE GRAINAGE MARALUR, TUMKUR-5. … PETITIONER
( BY SMT. B A VANI, PARTY-IN-PERSON. )
UNION OF INDIA
THE HONOURABLE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
4TH FLOOR, A-WING, SHASTRI BHAVAN NEW DELHI-110 001. … RESPONDENT
WRIT PETITION FILED PRAYING TO DECLARE THE “ENTIRE SECTION 13-B OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 [CENTRAL ACT NO.25/1955] AS AMENDED UPTO DATE AS “UNCONSTITUTIONAL & ARBITRARY” VIDE ANNEXURE-A, AS SECTION 13, 13-A & 13-B OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 ARE INCOMPLETE, UNENFORCEABLE, ARBITRARY & UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS AGAINST TO THE ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950, ETC.ÿ
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
D.H.WAGHELA, CJ (ORAL) :
1. By filing the present Writ Petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner, an advocate herself, has prayed for a declaration that Sections 13, 13-A and 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as amended upto date, are unconstitutional and arbitrary.
2. Learned counsel, appearing as party-in-person, sought to argue that the sanctity of Hindu marriage is declining because of the aforesaid provisions and, in the interest of institution of marriage, heritage, culture as also the children and senior citizens of India, the aforesaid provisions were required to be held to be unconstitutional as violating Article 21 of the Constitution.
3. Even as no legal submission is made as to how the impugned provisions could be treated as violating the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, it was seen that the petition is based on traditional concept of Hindu marriage and it is an attempt to revive the ideal sanctity of marriage as understood in India since the Vedic era. It is, however, not within the jurisdiction of this court to allow imposition of particular views of an individual on the society, while the law on the subject has been codified and amended after extensive debate in the Parliament.
4. Thus, in the absence of any legal ground being made out to challenge the said provisions, the petition is dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-