live-in- 2008

    S. Khushboo Vs. Kannaiammal and Another– live-in

    facts-

    Appellant was a film actress approached to the Supreme Court for representing the case through special leave petition to struck down criminal cases against her there are almost 23 complaints registered against her under section 499, 500, 505 of IPC.Some complaints consist of indecent representation of women prohibition act, 1986

    The actress was struck in the controversy because of her statement in new magazine about the live-in relationship that put her in trouble and later another newspaper distorted her comment in very discreet manner. The appellant approach to the madras High Court under section 482 under criminal procedure, 1973 to exercise the inherent power of the court whereas, the high court reject her plea.

    The background of the case is that in September 2005, India today news magazine hold a survey on the matter of live in relationship, about the cohabitation of two partners without any marriage. Whereas the appellant and the other individual  gave their different views on the live-in relationship status however appellant spoke in favor of live-in relationship, gave her remark on adequate protective measure must be taken by girl to avoid unwanted pregnancy and the protect herself from sexually transmitted diseases. Her remark along with survey was published in magazine.

    However another newspaper Dhina Thanthi publishes the highlighted remark of appellant with poll survey. whereas this newspaper distorted the words of the appellant and thus create the controversy whereas the appellant do not gave remark on any person personally, nor the appellant intended to insult the married women, but the words of the appellant was very well distorted by the newspaper that affects the character of the appellant in front of society. These issues thus raised complaint against her.

    On behalf of appellant Mr. pinkianand the learned counsel through special leave petition prayed to court to remove the criminal complaints against the appellant. the counsel seeks the assistance under article 19(1)(a) of the constitution on fair comment, whatever appellant says it her expression  and the speech and she do not have any intention to hurt the sentiments of women, what every she spoke is just the advise  not a comment, so there is no contention to include the society as a whole. All the complaints are false and with malafide intention to demean the status of appellant in society or the strategy of the political parties to win the election.

    Respondent

     The high court dismiss the plea of the appellant as the high court do not want to interfered in the matter of the criminal proceedings whereas the supreme court should not interfere in such matter of criminal complaints that involves controversy, such controversy devastated the women status in society as the remark given by the appellant is very offending and can affect the image of women in the society.

    The highlighted remarks thus affect the younger generation to follow modern culture and engage in live in relationship rather to perform marriage. Such remarks can intensify the immorality and uncultured young generation.

    Whereas the freedom of speech and expression imposes the reasonable restriction on public tranquility, orders that affects the morality and decency of the person.

    The counsel from the side of responded plead to the apex court not use its inherent power or writ jurisdiction and do not interfere in matter related to criminal proceedings, investigation trials.

    Relevant case laws-

    Ms Pepsi Food Ltd V Anr V/S Special Judicial Magistrate And Ors [1] in this case the court states that in rarest of the rarest cases the inherent power be destroyed and such criminal proceedings must come to an end but in some cases where the court thinks that it is appropriate to destroy the inherent power.

     Ms Medical Chemical And Pharma Ltd V/S Ms Biological E Ltd And Ors[2]

    Any charges or complaints can be quashed by the Supreme Court that are not based on prima facie evidences and thus do not support any allegations or complaints or any charges.

    Shakson Bathissor V/S State Of Kerala And Anr(2009) 14, Scc 466

    The duty of the Supreme Court is to know whether the person convicted is innocent or not, within such stipulated time the court is not allowed to prosecute the person on the basis of false implication.

    Obscenity Under article 292 of IPC the book templates or articles having the obscene material, such writer or the seller of such obscene material held responsible and prosecuted for the same.

     Samaresh Bose Vs Amal Mitra ,[3]

    The judge before giving the judgment must understand what author wants to convey must impersonate the author must understand what author wants to convey the viewpoint must be taken into consideration that clearly states the author’s intention what the author wanted to depict in their book.

    Lata Singh V/S State Of Up [4]

    The live in relationship between the heterosexual couples and both agreed and with mutual consent they wanted to cohabitant together without any performance of marriage is not a crime however the girl is free to deicide she wanted to marry or not or to still wanted to live in cohabitation without any marriage. In this vase the brother from the girl side filed complaint under section 366 and 368 of IPC. The case entertained and accepted in the court, relief is provided to the partners staying in live in relationship and all the criminal trials were removed by the court.

    Under section 499 defamation is imposed on the appellant whereas the intention must be present at the time of defamation but the appellant do not have any intention to target the status of women or any particular women she states the words that are general in nature and do not have any means to hurts the sentiments of the women. So the actus reus and mens rea not present. whereas the statement published in India today is based on general perspective as like what is asked and such has to be answered according to one’s own ability and thinking.

    Whereas in support of the appellant case on of the case very similar such as in case of G.Narasimha And Ors Vs Tv Chokappa [5]

    The Hindu published the news of political leader Dravida Kazhangham on Jan 23 1971 in which the political leader stated that no offences to the married women desired another man.

     The Hindu distorted the news and passed the news like the soon a new law would be introduced by the party that allowing the women to have external affair and that too not a crime in the eyes of law.

    Whereas the he defamatory statement published by Dhina Thanti do not have any proof of mental agony or to women no prima facie evidence is present. The premarital issue is kept untouched and the marriage is an important institution the customs and rituals of marriage the appellant only concern is to remove the complaints and THE Appellant do not have any intention to hurt to disturb the culture or marriage life, she only gave her opinion on the matter, with no false and mala-fide intention to hurt the sentiments of person.

    Verdict- live-in

    complaint set aside and the appeal is allowed high court set aside the criminal complaints against the appellant on 30. 4.2008.

    CONCLUSION- live-in

    This is the first time, when an actress came openly in public and talk about being single and live without years. But, in Indian society its hard for society to accept the reality of mordern couple and their open minded thinking to life without any marriage.

    with this case, the discussion about live-in and what new changes needs to be implemented with concern to cohabitation of two people without marriage.

    live-in is not a crime and not an offence, no person could be stopped to give his/her views on live-in status or discuss the status of private right in public. its not a criminal offence and not at all any derogatory statement which needs to be highlighted.

    The media, newspaper or not any political party has no right to harm such reputation of any person, regarding the personal status of living.

    OTHER POST-


    [1] Air 1998, sc 128

    [2] AIR 2000 sc 1869

    [3] Air 1986 sc 967

    [4] Air 2006 sc 2522

    [5] Air 1972 sc 2609