Narender Kumar vs State Of H.P. And Others on 2 February, 2018

[Cites 6, Cited by 25]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Narender Kumar vs State Of H.P. And Others on 2 February, 2018

Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                         Cr.W.P.No. : 2 of 2018




                                                                        .
                                        alongwith Cr.M.P.(M) No.75/2018





                                     Date of decision: 2.2.2018
    ____________________________________________________________





    CrWP No. 2/2018 and Cr.M.P.(M) No. 75

    Narender Kumar.                                                ....Petitioner.
                                           Versus





    State of H.P. and others.                                         ...Respondents.


    Coram


    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

Whether approved for reporting1?. No. For the Petitioner : Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. Ashok Sharma, A.G. with Mr. J.S. Guleria, Asstt. A.G. and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer for the respondent-State.

ASI Surinder Kumar, HC Surinder Kumar No.16 and LC Seema Devi No. 246, Police Station Kihar, District Chamba.

___________________________________________________________ Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J (oral).

By medium of CrWP No. 2/2018, the petitioner has sought a writ of habeas corpus seeking directions to the police authorities to produce Manisha Kumari, who according Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? yes ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 22:51:18 :::HCHP 2 to him, is his legally wedded wife, whereas CrMP(M) No. 75/2018 has been filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory .

bail in case FIR No. 6/2018 dated 25.1.2018 for offences punishable under sections 363, 366, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Kihar, District Chamba.

2. On 31.1.2018, this Court had directed the police authorities in CrWP No. 2/2018 to produce Manisha Kumari and in compliance thereof, she has been produced in the custody of ASI Surinder Kumar, HC Surinder Kumar No.16 and LC Seema Devi No. 246, Police Station, Kihar, District Chamba.

3. It is not in dispute that the parties are major, as is evident from the matriculation examinations certificates annexed as Annexure P-1 with CrMP(M) No. 75/2018. The Court had occasion to interact with Manisha Kumari,who has clearly stated that she is not willing to reside with her parents and would only reside with the petitioner with whom she has solemnized the marriage on 6.1.2018 at Nalagarh.

4. It is more than settled that a major girl is free to marry anyone or live with anyone she likes and in case she is now married and residing with the petitioner, then no offence ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 22:51:18 :::HCHP 3 can be alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. The parties have a right to live their lives the way it suits them .

and no person or authority much less the parents of the girl can interfere with their lives.

5. In United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, to which the India is also a signatory, Article 16 provides that:

"(1) Men and Women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution;

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses;

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society".

8. Similarly, in International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 19.12.1966, Article 23 provides that:

"1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State;

2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized;

3. No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses;

::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 22:51:18 :::HCHP 4

4. Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and .

responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children".

7. It is more than settled that International Covenant, which have been ratified by India, are binding to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the domestic law.

8. In Sangita Rani (Smt.) alias Mehnaz Jahan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 1992 Supp (1), SCC 715, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in a situation where both the spouses are major, there has been a valid marriage in accordance with law and both of them are living together, the marriage should be sustained and nothing should be allowed to happen which would affect that position.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the facts of the said case, cautioned the parents to accept the situation and create no problem.

9. The Court proceedings cannot be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution.

::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 22:51:18 :::HCHP 5

10. In view of aforesaid discussion, I find merit in both the petitions and the same are according allowed.

11. The petitioner has not committed any offence, therefore, FIR No.6/2018 dated 25.1.2018 for offences punishable under section 363, 366, 120-B IPC is quashed and consequently, no further orders are required to be passed in CrMP(M) No.75/2018.

Both the petitions are disposed of in aforesaid terms.

An authenticated copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Vacation Judge 2.2.2018 *awasthi* ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 22:51:18 :::HCHP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court