Gujarat High Court
Khatik Rohini Misrilal & vs State Of Gujarat & 4 on 6 August, 2015
Author: Abhilasha Kumari
Bench: Abhilasha Kumari
R/SCR.A/4411/2015 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION - POLICE PROTECTION)
NO. 4411 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
===========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of No
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of No
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
KHATIK ROHINI MISRILAL & 1....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 4....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. BHARGAV K MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 2
DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR LB DABHI, LEARNED ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA
KUMARI
Date : 06/08/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 7
HC-NIC Page 1 of 7 Created On Tue Aug 11 01:12:55 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/4411/2015 JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Mr.L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided, finally.
2. By preferring this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have, interalia, prayed that the concerned Police authorities may be directed to provide police protection to the petitioners.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that both of them have attained the age of majority, being aged 23 and 22 years respectively. The petitioners were working together at Jewellery Showroom in Ahmedabad. Over a period of time, they fell in love with each other and decided to tie the marital knot. The petitioners got married on 20.07.2015 before the Registrar of Marriages under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Marriage Registration Certificate has been Page 2 of 7 HC-NIC Page 2 of 7 Created On Tue Aug 11 01:12:55 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/4411/2015 JUDGMENT produced at AnnexureA to the petition. As the marriage of the petitioners was not liked by the parents of petitioner No.1 (wife) and was performed against their will and wish, the petitioners are, therefore, living separately. It is the case of the petitioners that the father of petitioner No.1 has been giving threats to the petitioners and to the mother of petitioner No.2. The petitioners, as well as the parents of petitioner No.2, apprehend danger to their lives and property. Under the circumstances, the present petition has been preferred.
4. Mr.Bhargav K. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioners, has submitted that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2007(1) GLH 41, and as both the petitioners have attained the age of majority, some protection is required to be granted, in order to protect the lives and liberty of the petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. Mr.L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Page 3 of 7 HC-NIC Page 3 of 7 Created On Tue Aug 11 01:12:55 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/4411/2015 JUDGMENT Prosecutor, has submitted that the application dated 11.07.2015, preferred by petitioner No.1 to respondent No.2, would be dealt with in accordance with law.
6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties and taken into consideration the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (supra).
7. There is no dispute regarding the fact that both the petitioners have attained the age of majority. There is enough material on record to indicate that the petitioners have got married to each other and their marriage has been registered. As such, having attained the age of majority, the petitioners are within their rights in taking their own decision regarding their lives.
8. In Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (supra), the Supreme Court has held as below:
"7. The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when we have to be united to face Page 4 of 7 HC-NIC Page 4 of 7 Created On Tue Aug 11 01:12:55 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/4411/2015 JUDGMENT the challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence, intercaste marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying the caste system. However, disturbing news are coming from several parts of the country that young men and women who undergo intercaste marriage, are threatened with violence, or violence is actually committed on them. In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such intercaste or interreligious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such intercaste or interreligious marriage. 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 intercaste or interreligious 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 Page 5 of 7 HC-NIC Page 5 of 7 Created On Tue Aug 11 01:12:55 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/4411/2015 JUDGMENT 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.
8. We sometimes hear of 'honour' killings of such persons who undergo inter caste or interreligious marriage of their own free will. There is nothing honourable in such killings, and in fact they are nothing but barbaric and shameful acts of murder committed by brutal, feudal minded persons who deserve harsh punishment. Only in this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism."
9. The constitutional guarantee and right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is the fundamental right of the petitioners. As such, the State is dutybound to protect their lives, liberty and wellbeing.
10. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, and considering the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (supra), this Court is of the view that Page 6 of 7 HC-NIC Page 6 of 7 Created On Tue Aug 11 01:12:55 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/4411/2015 JUDGMENT protection is required to be given to the petitioners in order to prevent any untoward incident or danger to their lives. The following directions are, therefore, issued:
Respondent No.5 - Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vejalpur Police Station, Ahmedabad, shall look into the representation dated
11.07.2015, made by petitioner No.1 and take necessary action to ensure that there is no danger to the lives and liberty of the petitioners.
11. The petition is partlyallowed in the above terms. Rule is made absolute, accordingly.
Direct Service is permitted.
(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) piyush Page 7 of 7 HC-NIC Page 7 of 7 Created On Tue Aug 11 01:12:55 IST 2015