Headline: ‘Better to Have a Divorced Daughter Than…’: Supreme Court’s Sharp Observations in Twisha Sharma Case
By [Your Name] | National Correspondent
New Delhi, [Date] – The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday delivered a stern message on parental coercion in marriage, making a series of pointed observations during the hearing of the Twisha Sharma case. The case, which has drawn national attention, revolves around a young woman’s right to choose her life partner against her family’s wishes.
During the proceedings, a bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar did not mince words while addressing the pressures faced by the petitioner, Twisha Sharma, who has sought protection from her parents. The court’s remarks have reignited debates on individual autonomy, parental control, and the legal boundaries of family interference in adult relationships.
‘Better to Have a Divorced Daughter Than a Dead Daughter’
The most striking comment came when the bench observed that forcing a child into an unwanted marriage could have devastating consequences. “Better to have a divorced daughter than a dead daughter,” Justice Khanna remarked, underscoring the risks of emotional and physical harm that can arise from coercive family practices.
The observation was made in the context of a father’s reluctance to accept his daughter’s choice. The court stressed that parents must respect the adult decisions of their children, even if those choices differ from traditional expectations. “You cannot force a marriage. If you do, there will be consequences that you may regret for life,” the bench added.
Case Background: A Daughter’s Plea for Safety
Twisha Sharma, a 24-year-old woman from Delhi, had approached the Supreme Court seeking protection from her parents after she married a man of her choice against their wishes. According to court filings, her parents had allegedly threatened her and her husband, claiming they would not accept the inter-caste, love marriage.
The case is part of a growing number of petitions across Indian courts where young adults—predominantly women—seek legal safeguards after facing ostracism, threats, or worse from their families for marrying outside caste or religious lines.
Legal Precedent: The Right to Choose
The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right to marry a person of one’s own choice as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty. In several past judgments, including the landmark Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) and Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006), the court has ruled that no third party, including parents, has the authority to veto an adult’s marital decision.
During Wednesday’s hearing, the bench reiterated that the state has a duty to protect individuals from honor-related violence. “The court will not tolerate any form of harassment. We are here to ensure that the constitutional right to life and liberty is not compromised by familial pressure,” Justice Kumar added.
A Broader Societal Reckoning
The remarks come at a time when India is witnessing a slow but significant shift in societal attitudes toward love marriages, especially inter-caste and interfaith unions. Yet, reports of honor killings, forced marriages, and family violence remain alarmingly common. According to National Crime Records Bureau data, over 100 honor killings are reported annually, though activists say the actual number is far higher.
Legal experts have praised the court’s stance. “The Supreme Court is sending a clear signal that parental authority has limits when it endangers the life and dignity of a child,” said senior advocate Karuna Nundy. “These words are not just for the parties but for every family in India that believes they have the right to decide their child’s future.”
Conclusion: A Warning and a Shield
The Supreme Court’s observations in the Twisha Sharma case serve as both a warning to authoritarian parents and a shield for young adults seeking freedom. By declaring that it is better to have a living, divorced child than a child lost to coercion or violence, the bench has placed human life and liberty above rigid social norms.
The court has directed the Delhi Police to provide protection to Twisha Sharma and her husband, and has listed the matter for further hearing to ensure compliance. As the case proceeds, its implications are likely to resonate far beyond the courtroom, prompting a necessary national conversation on the boundaries of parental authority in a democratic society.
—
*Source: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/better-to-have-divorced-daughter-than-top-remarks-in-sc-hearing-of-twisha-sharma-bhopal-dowry-death-case-101779702958733.html*