In 1960, Savitri, a 17-and-a-half-year-old girl and B.Sc. student, was living in Nungambakkam with her family. She developed a relationship with her neighbor, Varadarajan. When her sister saw them talking, Savitri expressed her desire to marry him. Their father, S. Natrajan, took her to a relative’s house to keep her away from Varadarajan.
However, the next day, Savitri left the house on her own, met Varadarajan, and went with him in his car. They got married at the registrar’s office with a friend as witness. Later, they stayed in Coimbatore and Tanjore.
Following this, Savitri’s father filed a police complaint for kidnapping. The Madras High Court held Varadarajan guilty and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment. Varadarajan appealed against this decision in the Supreme Court.
Issues before the Court
- Whether a minor can voluntarily leave her lawful guardian without the guardian’s permission?
- Whether the act of Varadarajan taking Savitri amounts to kidnapping from lawful guardianship under the Indian Penal Code?
- Was there active involvement by Varadarajan in taking Savitri out of her father's guardianship, or did she voluntarily accompany him?
Analysis of the Court
In this case, Justice Mudholkar carefully examined the facts and statements made during the proceedings, particularly focusing on the actions and intentions of both parties involved—Savitri and the appellant, Varadarajan. The Judge noted that Savitri herself admitted that she had left her relatives’ house on her own and had called Varadarajan to meet her at a specific place. Importantly, there was no evidence or claim that Varadarajan had influenced or persuaded her to take that step.
Further, Savitri had clearly expressed her desire to marry Varadarajan, and there was no compulsion or force applied by him to make her accompany him to the Registrar’s office or to go through with the marriage. In fact, the initiative to get married had come from Savitri. Her continued presence with Varadarajan during the entire process was in line with her own wish to be his wife. This clearly pointed towards a voluntary and conscious decision made by Savitri, rather than any act of inducement or abduction by the appellant.
The Court ultimately held that Varadarajan could not be held guilty of taking away Savitri since her decision to go with him was voluntary. It was also observed that Savitri was close to the age of majority and was mature enough to understand the consequences of her actions. Thus, considering the absence of force or deceit and the element of mutual consent, the Court allowed the appeal and acquitted Varadarajan of all charges.
Concluding Remark
This judgment highlights the importance of recognizing individual agency, especially in cases involving consent and personal choice. The Court rightly concluded that responsibility cannot be unfairly placed on one party when both are voluntarily involved in the act. It is a significant decision that reinforces the principle that criminal liability should be based on clear evidence of wrongdoing, not mere assumptions. The case also sets a precedent for handling similar situations with sensitivity and fairness, ensuring that justice is not clouded by social prejudices or one-sided interpretations.
