Kanchan vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs in the present petition:-

“(i) Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to look into the matter seriously and to provide police protection to

the petitioner and respondent No.9 to save their lives within a time bound frame and to not create any hindrance in their marriage for any reason

whatsoever, in the interest of justice.

(ii) Any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly

be passed, in the interest of justice.â€​

This Court on 16-05-2018 passed the following order in the present case:-

“Jabalpur, dated 16.5.2018

Mr. Arvind Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen Dubey, learned Government Advocate for the respondents-State.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner herein who is an 18-year-old girl having recently attained the age of majority, who is stated to be

romantically inclined with the respondent no.9 who belongs to Muslim community. Earlier, when she was a minor, she is stated to have eloped with the

respondent no.9 on account of which Crime No.83/2018 came to be registered at Police Station Devri, district Sagar, against the respondent no.9 for

offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. The petitioner was recovered and handed over to her parents. She attained the age of majority on

14.3.2018 and thereafter she is stated to have once again gone and joined the respondent no.9 and wanted to live with him. However, she was once

again recovered and the proceedings of the SDO reflects that as there is already a case pending against the respondent no.9, the custody of the

petitioner cannot be handed over to him and also bearing in mind a law and order situation that may probably arise on account of the girl being sent

with the respondent no.9, her custody was not handed over to the respondent no.9 and instead she was sent to Nari Niketan. By the present petition,

the petitioner has sought for police protection for the purpose of getting married to the respondent no.9 and to live with him.

Under the circumstances, this Court requests the respondent no.3, who is the Superintendent of Police, district Sagar, to record the statement of the

petitioner, ascertain her age and if she has attained the age of majority to provide her security so that she may marry the respondent no.9 and livewith

him.

List this case for further orders on 18.6.2018.

A typed copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the State for necessary action.

(Atul Sreedharan)

Judgeâ€​

In obedience of aforesaid Court’s order, official respondents have filed compliance/status report.

Learned counsel for the petitioner pressed his relief clause. On a specific query from the Bench, the petitioner contended that she has already married

respondent No.9 and she wants to live with him for which necessary protection may be provided.

Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned G.A. relied on the status  report and in particular Para 14 and 16 of the reply. The said paras read as under:-

“14. That, the respondent No.9 has also given an application on 14.03.2018 that he and the petitioner would be getting married in Court. Copy of

application alongwith affidavit is filed herewith as Annexure R-10.

That, it is pertinent to mention here that, though the petitioner is willing to marry respondent No.9 but it has to noted the respondent No.9 is being

prosecuted u/s 364, 366 of IPC and in the trial in case the respondent No.9 is convicted then if the petitioner is married to respondent No.9 then it will

be difficult for her to sustain her life and thus, proper counseling to the petitioner is required, so that the petitioner does not take a decision in due

haste. Though, the answering respondents have already provided counseling to her but She is adamant to marry respondent No.9 and her parents are

also not ready to take her custody.â€​

In view of status report, it is clear that as on date the petitioner has attained majority. In catena of judgments, the Apex Court held that it is the choice

of a major to decide his life partner. If the petitioner has taken a conscious decision which is again reiterated by her today before this Court, nobody

else has any right to raise eyebrows about her decision. The Apex Court in the case of Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2006 (5)

SCC 475 opined as under:-

“The nation is passing through a crucial transitional period in our history, and the Supreme Court cannot remain silent in matters of great public

concern, such as the present one. The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. In fact, it is diving 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. Such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and

those who commit them must b 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-religious marriage. 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.

It is therefore directed 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 is not harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of

violence, and anyone 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.â€​

In the subsequent judgments, the Apex Court again poignantly held as under:-

“When two adults consensually choose each other as life partners, it is manifestation of their choice which is recognized under Arts. 19 and 21 of

the Constitution. Such right has sanction of constitutional law and once that is recognized, said right needs to be protected and it cannot succumb to

conception of class honour or group thinking which is conceived of on some notion that remotely does not have any legitimacy. Consent of family or

community or clan is not necessary once two adult individuals agree to enter into wedlock. Their consent has to be piously given primacy. If there is

offence committed by one because of some penal law, that has to be decided as per law which is called determination of criminality. It does not

recognize any space for informal institutions for delivery of justice. It is so since polity governed by ‘Rule of Law’ only accepts determination of

rights and violation thereof by formal institutions set up for dealing with such situations. Rule of law as concept is meant to have order in society. It

respects human rights.â€​ [See AIR 2018 SC 1601 (Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India & Ors.)]

[See also AIR 2018 SC 1933 (Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. & Ors.]â€​

In the light of aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has a valuable right to decide her life partner for the purpose of

marriage. She is free to marry respondent No.9, if not already married. It is made clear that nobody has any right to take the petitioner or respondent

No.9 to task because of said marriage. Life, liberty and dignity of the petitioner and respondent No.9 should not be put to jeopardy by anyone because

of said marriage. It shall be the duty of police authorities to provide adequate protection to the petitioner and her life partner in the event of any threat

because of said marriage. The respondents shall take necessary steps to see that rights and liberty of the petitioner flowing from Article 21 of the

Constitution is not taken away by anybody.

It is made clear that if the petitioner or respondent No.9 requires any protection because of said marriage, they shall apprise the police authorities and

in that event, it will be the duty of police authorities to provide them adequate protection. The petitioner is free to join respondent No.9 or take further

course of action as per her own decision.

The petition is disposed of.