Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reena Devi And Another vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 25 September, 2018
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA.
.
CWP No. 2294 of 2018.
Date of Decision : 25.09.2018.
Reena Devi and another ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
...Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting ? No
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani,Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate
General with Mr. Ajay Vaidya,
Senior Additional Advocate
General, Mr. J.K. Verma, Ms. Ritta
Goswami, Mr. Adarsh Sharma and
Mr.Nand Lal Thakur, Additional
Advocate Generals, for
respondents No. 1 to 3.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)
CWP No. 2294 of 2018.
Issue notice. Notice confined to respondents No.1 ______________________ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2018 22:58:29 :::HCHP 2 to 3. Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, .
appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. Keeping in view the nature of order, we propose to pass, there is no need to issue notice to private respondents No. 4 to 6.
2. The petitioners claim themselves to be adults and further claim to have solemnized their marriage according to Hindu rituals and ceremonies on 20.09.2018 at Baba Balaknath Temple, Prahlad Nagar, Hoshiarpur, Punjab.
In support of these submissions, the petitioners have annexed copies of certificate of caste, matriculation certificates, certificate issued by the priest and photographs of marriage, which, prima facie, indicate that both the petitioners are major and have solemnized the marriage on 20.09.2018.
3. According to the petitioners, their marriage does not seem to have gone well, particularly, with the private respondents No. 4 to 6, ostensibly because of the petitioners belonging to different castes.
::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2018 22:58:29 :::HCHP 34. It is more than settled that a major girl is free to .
marry anyone she likes or live with anyone she likes and in case she is married and residing with the boy, then no offence is committed by her. The petitioners have a right to live their lives the way it suits them and no person or authority much less the parents and relatives of the parties can interfere with their lives what to talk of trying to carry out threat, intimidation or even terrorize the petitioners.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. and another AIR 2006 SC 2522 while dealing with a case of harassment by the parents of the boy and girl, who had entered into an inter-caste marriage, had issued directions to the administration/police authorities throughout the country in the following terms:-
"17......We, therefore, direct that the administration/ police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple are not harassed by any one nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and any one who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law."::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2018 22:58:29 :::HCHP 4
6. In view of the settled position, the .
Superintendent of Police, Kangra at Dharamshala (respondent No.3), is directed to afford police protection to the petitioners and to ensure that they are not harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of violence and to further ensure that anyone who extends such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation is taken to task. He shall further ensure that the directions already passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Priyanka and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, Cr.W.P. No.8 of 2014, decided on 23.04.2014 are implemented in its letter and spirit.
7. With these observations, the petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications.
Copy dasti.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge 25th September, 2018.
(krt) ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2018 22:58:29 :::HCHP