New Delhi,
The Supreme Court on Thursday said it would consider hearing on March 8 the matter whether a court can interfere when two adults got married.The top court said this in connection with the Kerala love Jihad case.
A three-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra and also comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, said, “when two adults got married, can a court interfere into it?”The top court has deferred the matter for further hearing to March 8, Thursday.
Senior Supreme Court lawyer, Shyam Diwan, counsel appearing for Hadiya’s father, Ashokan, argued before the top court three-judge bench that the Kerala High Court was right in exercising its jurisdiction as it was not a normal marriage. “The girl seemed to be under the influence of an extremist organisation. It seemed that this issue was an issue of mass trafficking. She was a vulnerable adult,” he said.
Divan also submitted to the top court that the National Investigating Agency (NIA) also should be heard by the apex court as to what investigation it had carried out so far on the lines of human trafficking.
Kerala Love Jihad case victim, Hadiya (also known as Akhila) had on February 20, filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court and stated that she was a Muslim and wanted to remain as a Muslim. Hadiya, in her affidavit, also stated that she wanted to remain as wife of Safin Jahan.
This affidavit comes after the Supreme Court had passed a detailed order on November last year. On November 27, last year, the Supreme Court had in its order directed that Hadiya be taken to Shivaraj, Homeopathy College at Salem, Tamil Nadu to continue and pursue her 11-month career/ studies. The apex court also said that the college authorities had to make all the necessary arrangements for her hostel facilities to complete her studies there.
The Supreme Court had also said that the Dean of the university would act as her local guardian there.When Hadiya had appeared before the top court three-judge bench, headed by CJI Misra, she told the SC that she wanted to remain free and wanted to live a life with freedom.
