AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 201 wordsMoksha Khajuria Kazmi, J
Petitioners claim that they, being major, have contracted marriage out of their freewill and are living as husband and wife, but are apprehensive to be subjected to physical violence and harassment at hands of their relatives, for having contracted marriage against their wishes. Petitioners, therefore, seek protection and security from the official respondents.
Heard, perused and considered.
Perusal of record annexed with writ petition, prima facie, reveals that petitioners are major and have contracted marriage on 22.04.2026, according to Hindu rites and rituals.
In view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of U. P. (2006) 5 SCC 475, and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India & Ors AIR 2018 SC 1601, the official respondents are directed to provide adequate protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners, however, this shall not prevent the official respondents to carry out the investigation of a case which may be registered against the petitioners in respect of any other incident.
Needless to say, that disposal of instant petition does not authenticate petitioners' marriage or their age/majority to enter into marriage.
Disposed of along with connected CM.