|  |  | 

India Top Headlines

We were completely misquoted in the query of ‘would you marry her?’, Says CJI | India News


NEW DELHI: After enduring misplaced criticism for her question of “will you marry her?” To a man accused of rape by a woman years after the two of them, as minors, had sex, a Supreme Cout bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde said Monday it always had. the greatest respect for femininity.
CJI bench Bobde and judges AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian said last week’s news reports and activists cited her question of “would you marry her?” Out of context. To create unnecessary controversy and tarnish the image of SC and its judges.
The court said that it had asked the petitioner, in the context of the case, if he would marry the complainant and had not asked him to “marry her.” CJI Bobde said, “the court proceedings in that case were completely misinformed.”
Attorney General Tushar Mehta cited section 165 of the Evidence Act and said that a court is mandated to ask any question in a fact finding question or for any purpose. SG said “will you marry her?” It was a perfectly valid question in the context of the case. SG said the issue was completely misinformed and a sector of society began to wrongly attack the court and judges.
Attorney VK Biju said that this has been the trend outside of the Supreme Court, where some people cite the Supreme Court’s observations out of context for the sole reason of creating controversy. Biju said SC had always prioritized cases related to women’s hardships, citing some where the court had quickly heard matters out of turn.
A pained CJI said: “The fact is that we have the highest respect for women and femininity. The controversy was unnecessary ”
The question of “will you marry her?” It came from the bank led by the CJI last week in the peculiar facts of that case and in a reading of the entire case file it seemed to be pertinent. The incident occurred in 2014-15 when the boy, who could then be between 16 and 17 years old, had sex with another minor, who was his distant relative.
The initial liaison was without a condom and then used a condom, the woman said in her complaint. He also said that the sexual relationship with the boy was under duress and that he had gone to the police station with his mother to complain. However, when the boy’s mother promised through a notarized affidavit, which was also signed by his mother, that the children would marry her when they came of age, she refrained from reporting to the police.
When the girl reached marriageable age, she learned that the man was not keeping his promise to marry and filed a complaint with the police. The man went to the trial court, which examined the facts and circumstances of the case and the relationship and granted him advance bond. It was in the context of the girl refraining from filing a complaint based on the promise of marriage that the CJI-led court asked the boy if he was still ready to marry.
But, when the boy said that he cannot because he is already married, the bank led by the CJI punished him and said that he could not be granted an advance bail for a crime that included the seduction and exploitation of a minor. He asked him to seek regular court bail while protecting him from arrest for four weeks.

Original source