Further, the Court said that the marital issues between Shreya and Dinesh could not come in the way of what was undoubtedly Prasanna’s fundamental right to life under Article 21. It recorded that the aspect was overlooked by both authorities by choosing to give primacy to a private, unstated, unspecified concern.
Noting that Shreya was given every opportunity to attend the interview, the Court opined that she stood to lose nothing, as Dinesh had clarified that he had provisioned for her and her unmarried daughter.
Thus, it determined that it was not open to Shreya to defeat the entire process by simply staying away and somehow getting the authorities to believe that her consent was necessary.
Source: Barandbench
