Gujarat High Court
Mayaben Ramsingbhai Delvar & vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 22 June, 2015
Author: Abhilasha Kumari
Bench: Abhilasha Kumari
R/SCR.A/3851/2015 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 3851 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
MAYABEN RAMSINGBHAI DELVAR & 1....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR FB BRAHMBHATT, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 2
MS. CHETNA M SHAH, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1-3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA
KUMARI
Date : 22/06/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 7
R/SCR.A/3851/2015 JUDGMENT 1 Rule. Ms. Chetna M Shah, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents.
2 This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred with the following prayers:
" 9 a) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent no.
3 to inquire and investigate the missing complaint lodged by the brother of the petitioner no.1 at Gandhidham-A Division Police Station being no. 13/2015 dtd.30.03.2015.
b) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and thereby be pleased to direct respondent no.3 to provide police protection in case of parents or relatives of the petitioner no.1 have filed any false case or cause any harassment to the petitioner while their stay at Gandhidham.
C) Your Lordships may be pleased grant such other and further relief as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice."
3 At the outset, Mr. F B Brahmbhatt, learned
advocate for the petitioners, states that the
Page 2 of 7
R/SCR.A/3851/2015 JUDGMENT
petitioners do not press the prayer made at paragraph 9 a), but, confines the prayer only to that contained in paragraph 9 b), regarding police protection being provided to them.
4 It is the case of the petitioners that they are in love with each other and wanted to get married. Their relationship was opposed by the parents of petitioner No.1. Therefore, according to the petitioners, they have got married to each other against the wishes of parents of petitioner No.1. The petitioner no.1 has voluntarily left her house, as has petitioner no.2. They have entered into an agreement (Maitri Karaar) with each other. It is further the case of the petitioner that a marriage ceremony was performed at a temple in Patan, photographs of which are annexed with the petition. However, the marriage has not been registered. According to the petitioners, they apprehend that the parents of petitioner No.1 would forcibly take her away with them, if they appear before the Police, as a complaint has been lodged against them by the brother of petitioner No.1. 5 Under the circumstances, the petitioners pray for Page 3 of 7 R/SCR.A/3851/2015 JUDGMENT police protection.
6 Mr. F B Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for the petitioners, submits that as petitioners are facing threats from the relatives and family members of petitioner No.1 and that they apprehend that she would be taken away forcibly by her parents, the prayer for police protection may be granted.
7 Ms. Chetna M Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that she has no objection if appropriate directions are issued to respondent No.3, District Superintendent of Police, Bhuj, in this regard.
8 Learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2007(1) GLH 41 in support of his averments.
9 This Court has heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and has taken into consideration the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court Page 4 of 7 R/SCR.A/3851/2015 JUDGMENT in the case of Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another. reported in 2007 (1) GLH 41. 10 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, inter-caste 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 inter- caste 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 inter-caste or inter-religious 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 inter-caste or inter-Page 5 of 7
R/SCR.A/3851/2015 JUDGMENT religious 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 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.
8. We sometimes hear of 'honour' killings of such persons who undergo inter-caste or inter- religious 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."
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 Page 6 of 7 R/SCR.A/3851/2015 JUDGMENT their lives.
As the petitioners have attained the age of majority and have decided to live together and/or get married to each other voluntarily, it would be in the interest of justice, to issue appropriate directions to respondent No.3, District Superintendent of Police, Bhuj, in this regard. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
12 The petitioners shall make an application to respondent No.3 for police protection, who shall look into the matter and take necessary action to ensure that there is no danger to the lives and liberty of the petitioners.
13 The petition is partly allowed in the above terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 14 Direct service is permitted.
(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) Bimal Page 7 of 7