Manisha Jilowa D/O Vinod Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:21948)

Rajasthan High Court

Manisha Jilowa D/O Vinod Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:21948) on 9 May, 2024

Author: Anil Kumar Upman

Bench: Anil Kumar Upman

[2024:RJ-JP:21948]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 957/2024

1.       Manisha Jilowa D/o Vinod Kumar, Aged About 18 Years,
         Resident Of Dhani-Daharwali Shyampura, Tehsil Patan,
         Neemkathana (Raj)
2.       Sonu Verma Son Of Rajendra Prashad, Aged About 19
         Years, R/o Kalota , Tehsil Khetri Dist. Neemkathana(Raj.)
                                                                     ----Petitioners
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2.       The Director General Of Police, Jaipur (Raj.)
3.       The Superintendent Of Police, Neemkathana (Raj.)
4.       The Station House Officer, Police Station Babai, Dist
         Neemkathana (Raj.)
5.       Kamlesh Devi W/o Vinod Kumar, Aged About 40 Years,
         Resident Of Dhani-Daharwali Shyampura, Tehsil Patan,
         Neemkathana (Raj)
6.       Satish D/o Omprakash, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of
         Dhani-Daharwali Shyampura, Tehsil Patan, Neemkathana
         (Raj)
7.       Sukhdev S/o Badarmal, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of
         Paji Ki Dhani, Tehsil Khetri, Neemkathana (Raj)
8.       Bhupendra S/o Sukhdev, Aged About 19 Years, Resident
         Of Paji Ki Dhani, Tehsil Khetri, Neemkathana (Raj)
9.       Pintu S/o Subhash, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of Paji
         Ki Dhani, Tehsil Khetri, Neemkathana (Raj)
10.      Monu S/o Subhash, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Paji
         Ki Dhani, Tehsil Khetri, Neemkathana (Raj)
11.      Sunil Kumar S/o Jaikaran, Aged About 30 Years, Resident
         Of    Bamanwas,         Tehsil      Chirawa,district        Neemkathana
         (Raj.))
                                                                   ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Omveer Singh Saini
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. N.S. Gurjar, PP




                       (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:49:12 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JP:21948]                      (2 of 4)                    [CRLW-957/2024]


           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

                                        Order

09/05/2024

1. Petitioners are major and present in person. They have duly been identified by their counsel.

2. Petitioners have preferred instant petition for issuance of necessary directions to official-respondents to provide adequate security and protection to them on the ground that they are facing grave threat of their life and liberty at the hands of private respondent.

3. Counsel for petitioners submits that both the petitioners are mature enough to take decision of their life. Counsel submits that petitioners have decided to live together in the company of each other but the respondent Nos. 5 to 11 were against it, therefore, the petitioner No. 1 left with no other option then to leave her house to reside together. Counsel further submits that petitioners have entered into live-in-relationship and executed the deed of live-in-relationship.

4. Pursuant the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Navtej Singh Johar V. Union of India [(2018)10 SCC 1] and of this court in Bajrang Lal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, SB Cr. Miscellaneous Petition No.2/2019 decided on 04-01-2019, the State Government through Director General of Police issued a Circular dated 18-01-2019 and appointed Nodal Officer at every Police Station in the State of Rajasthan for ventilation of grievances of newly married couple, including for adequate protection. Life and liberty is fundamental right of every citizen (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:49:12 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:21948] (3 of 4) [CRLW-957/2024] being part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, petitioners deserve protection of their life and liberty in accordance with law.

5. Similar to the married couple, petitioners, who are major and willingly living in relationship, without entering into marriage, also cannot be denied protection of their life and liberty since it is fundamental right of every citizen being part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as has been observed by this Apex Court in case of S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal [(2010)5 SCC 600] and Joseph Shine Vs. Union of India [(2019)3 SCC 39]. Thus, petitioners deserve protection of their life and liberty in accordance with law.

6. In view of above, however, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is not inclined to enter into examining the validity of marriage/legality of relationship of parties, therefore does not render any affirmation of legality and validity of the status of parties, under which they are living together, but keeping in mind the proposition of law set forth by the Apex Court in catena of judgments and in order to protect fundamental rights of parties for their life and liberty, guaranteed under the Constitution, this petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioners to approach the concerned Nodal Officer for ventilation of their grievances.

7. In case petitioners move any application, it is expected from the concerned Nodal Officer to take necessary action for not allowing to illegally hinder in peaceful life and liberty of petitioners by private respondent, who is not agreeable to the relationship of petitioners, but after verifying the fact, if required. (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:49:12 PM)

[2024:RJ-JP:21948] (4 of 4) [CRLW-957/2024]

8. However, it is made clear that this order will not affect the civil/ criminal proceedings, if any, in the present matter.

9. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN), J LALIT MOHAN /6 (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:49:12 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)