Justice M.M. Sundresh, Justice Aravind Kumar, Supreme Court
Unwarranted Marriage Thrust On Woman Is The Worst Form Of Alienation That She Can Experience: Supreme Court
|The Supreme Court said that a forced marriage, divorcing her from her professional ambitions and curtailing her further education, would certainly warrant a reaction and such reactions would vary from one woman to another, depending upon the circumstances.
The Supreme Court, in its recent Judgment, remarked that an unwarranted marriage thrust upon a woman is the worst form of alienation that she can experience both mentally and physically.
The Court remarked thus while upholding conviction of a woman who was accused of being involved in murder of her fiancé in the year 2003 but also granted her time to seek pardon.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar observed, “After making an abortive attempt in getting the family to accept her views, she may leave her parental home without notice, she may turn violent, or even commit suicide. If societal pressure stops her from undertaking any of these measures, and a marriage is forced upon her, her agony would compound and escalate. An unwarranted marriage thrust upon her is the worst form of alienation that she can experience both mentally and physically.”
The Bench said that a forced marriage, divorcing her from her professional ambitions and curtailing her further education, would certainly warrant a reaction and such reactions would vary from one woman to another, depending upon the circumstances.
Senior Advocates Ranjit Kumar, S. Nagamuthu, Siddhartha Dave, and R. Nedumaran appeared on behalf of the Appellants while Additional Advocate General (AAG) Muhammed Ali Khan and Senior Advocate Tomy Sebastian appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “A woman is pushed into a dark corner by external elements, that contribute substantially to the inequalities in her life. Thoughts of a woman would differ based on the place, person and group that she interacts with. It is the social norms and values which determine an action on her part, that is nothing but a form of her expression.”
The Court said that the breakdown of social norms contributes to a deviant behaviour, especially when individuals lack clear moral guidance from their communities.
“Social constraint might play a decisive role. Factors such as social stigma, lack of education, inadequate financial support, and perceived notions about the value system, might trigger a variety of responses. These factors do not merely limit her choices—they distort her very perception of freedom, making resistance seem impossible or even immoral. In some cases, she may internalize these pressures, believing that compliance is her only option. In others, she may resist in subtle, often invisible ways—through quiet despair, emotional withdrawal, or even clandestine acts of defiance”, it further noted.
The Court observed that an idea of rebellion against the regulatory norms imposed by the society, thus, leads to a deviant conduct, which often happens through social conditioning and a series of habits and it is the strained mind, irked by alienation and material deprivation, that ignores the moral stage, all while focusing on the avoidance of punishment which might be the consequence of being in pursuit of a self-justified solution to the predicament which afflicts them.
“Alienation in different forms is one of the major causes for a crime being committed, upon feeling a disconnect from the community, society, or social institutions. Alienated individuals often feel powerless and neglected, which can lead them to feel rejected by the society and its social norms. The breakdown of social norms contributes to a deviant behaviour, especially when individuals lack clear moral guidance from their communities. Since law keeps changing from time to time, what is legal, may not necessarily be moral. Rapid social change, orchestrated by law, often creates conducive conditions for criminal behaviour”, it added.
The Court also remarked that the voice of a young ambitious girl, muffled by a forced family decision, created the fiercest of turmoil in her mind and this, backed by an unholy alliance of a mental rebellion and wild romanticism, led to the tragic murder of an innocent young man, while simultaneously destroying the lives of three others.
“As we are satisfied with the adequacy of the evidence on record, though for different reasons, we are inclined to uphold the conviction and sentence rendered by the High Court in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the appeals stand dismissed by confirming the conviction of the appellants rendered by the High Court under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the IPC and additionally, Section 201 of the IPC for A-4 alone. The sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon them also stands confirmed”, it held.
Conclusion
The Court took note of the fact that the accused woman was unable to make a decision for herself, despite being an individual who had attained majority.
“Having said so, we cannot condone her action as it resulted in the loss of an innocent life of a young man. We would only state at this juncture, that A-4 was made to commit this offence by adopting the wrong course of action in order to address her problem. Years have rolled on since the occurrence of the crime, which was in 2003”, it added.
The Court said that it is difficult to decide at this stage who influenced the other, although there is a clear meeting of minds. In light of the same, the Court decided to facilitate the Appellants’ right to seek pardon by permitting them to file appropriate Petitions before the Governor of Karnataka.
“We would only request the constitutional authority to consider the same, which we hope and trust would be done by taking note of the relevant circumstances governing the case. … Accordingly, we grant eight weeks’ time from the date of this judgment, for the appellants to file appropriate petitions seeking to invoke the power of pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution. Till these petitions are duly considered and decided, the appellants shall not be arrested and their sentence shall remain suspended”, it directed and concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeals with the aforesaid liberty.
Cause Title- Shubha @ Shubhashankar v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 830)