Gujarat High Court
Mistry Priyankaben Kanaiyalal & vs State Of Gujarat & 5 on 12 August, 2015
Author: Abhilasha Kumari
Bench: Abhilasha Kumari
R/SCR.A/4768/2015 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION - POLICE PROTECTION)
NO. 4768 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 ?
================================================================
MISTRY PRIYANKABEN KANAIYALAL & 1....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 5....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. NIPUL H GONDALIA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 2
MR LB DABHI, LEARNED ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA
KUMARI
Date : 12/08/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Learned advocate for the petitioners has prayed for permission to delete respondents Nos.4 to 6 from Page 1 of 8 HC-NIC Page 1 of 8 Created On Sat Aug 15 01:09:48 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/4768/2015 JUDGMENT the causetitle of the petition. Permission to do so is granted. The necessary amendment be carried out, forthwith.
2. 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.
3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred with the following prayers:
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue appropriate writ order or direction to the respondent no.2 and 3 herein to consider the application dated: 01.08.2015 thereby to provide the police protection to the petitioners herein from the respondent no.4 to 6 from harassment, threats or act of violence in the interest of justice;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to order that pending admission and or final disposal of this petition, the respondent no.2 be directed to record the statement of the petitioner no.1 at Page 2 of 8 HC-NIC Page 2 of 8 Created On Sat Aug 15 01:09:48 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/4768/2015 JUDGMENT her residential address in the interest of justice;
(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant any other and further relief as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case;
4. It is the case of the petitioners that they both belong to the same village and are very wellknown to each other. The petitioners have developed love and affection for each other over the past five years. After attaining the age of the majority, they both decided to get married. However, the petitioners could not get married due to certain circumstances. Petitioner No.1 is 24 years of age and petitioner No.2 is 28 years of age. They, therefore, eloped in the year 2014. However, the father of petitioner No.1 purportedly arrived at a mutual understanding and asked that his daughter be handed back to him. When petitioner No.1 went to the house of the father, she was forced to put her signature on a stamp paper and, thereafter, was made to marry another person. However, petitioner No.1 left the house of her husband within fifteen days. The husband of petitioner No.1, thereafter, went away to Australia and got married to Page 3 of 8 HC-NIC Page 3 of 8 Created On Sat Aug 15 01:09:48 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/4768/2015 JUDGMENT another lady there.
4.1 It is further the case of the petitioners that the parents of petitioner No.1 are forcing her to marry another person against her wish. The petitioners had no choice but to move out of the village and are now moving from place to place. They have decided to live together in a livein relationship and have entered into a Deed for the said purpose, dated 01.08.2015.
4.2 It is the case of the petitioners that the father of petitioner No.1 is threatening and harassing petitioner No.2 and his family members as they have not accepted the relationship of the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, sent an application to respondent No.3Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bharuch, on 01.08.2015 requesting him for police protection. As nothing further has been done by respondent No.3, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the present petition.
5. Mr.Nipul H. Gondalia, learned advocate for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are forced Page 4 of 8 HC-NIC Page 4 of 8 Created On Sat Aug 15 01:09:48 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/4768/2015 JUDGMENT to move from place to place as they fear that some harm would be caused to their lives and liberty at the behest of the father and relatives of petitioner No.1, who have not accepted the relationship, so far. It is submitted that respondent No.3 may be directed to take appropriate steps so as to protect the lives and liberty of the petitioners.
6. Mr.L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that appropriate orders may be passed.
7. 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. reported in 2007(1) GLH 41.
8. There is no dispute regarding the fact that both the petitioners have attained the age of majority. There is sufficient material on record to indicate that the petitioners have decided to live together in a livein relationship. As such, having attained the age of majority, the petitioners are within their rights in taking their own decision regarding their Page 5 of 8 HC-NIC Page 5 of 8 Created On Sat Aug 15 01:09:48 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/4768/2015 JUDGMENT lives.
9. 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 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 Page 6 of 8 HC-NIC Page 6 of 8 Created On Sat Aug 15 01:09:48 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/4768/2015 JUDGMENT 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 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."
10. The constitutional guarantee and right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is the fundamental right of the petitioners, irrespective of Page 7 of 8 HC-NIC Page 7 of 8 Created On Sat Aug 15 01:09:48 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/4768/2015 JUDGMENT their marital status. As such, the State is dutybound to protect their lives, liberty and wellbeing.
11. 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 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.3 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bharuch, shall look into the representation dated 01.08.2015 made by petitioner No.1 and take necessary action to ensure that there is no danger to the lives and liberty of the petitioners.
12. The petition is partlyallowed in the above terms. Rule is made absolute, accordingly.
Direct Service is permitted.
(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) piyush Page 8 of 8 HC-NIC Page 8 of 8 Created On Sat Aug 15 01:09:48 IST 2015