Smt Sapna Savita W/O Shri Vikas ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2390 MP

       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        WP-7060-2021
    (Smt. Sapna Savita & Another Vs. State of M.P. & Others)


Gwalior, Dated : 15/06/2021

       None for petitioner.

       Shri G.K. Agarwal, Counsel for the State.

       Heard through Video Conferencing

       On 26.3.2021, this case was listed before the Division Bench

of this Court and accordingly, Office was directed to verify as to

whether the issue involved in this petition relates to the roaster of

Division Bench or Single Bench. Accordingly, the office has listed

the case before this Court.

       This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

been filed claiming that the petitioner No.1 is major girl aged about

23 years and petitioner No.2 is a major boy aged about 27 years.

Although the petitioner No.2 has not filed his mark sheet to show his

date of birth but the age of the petitioner No.2 is mentioned in the

cause title.

       It is the case of the petitioner that they have got married on

12.3.2021 at Arya Vaidik Samaj Sanstha, Khidki Mohalla Ganj

Gwalior. It appears that immediately after getting married, the

petitioners made a representation to the DGP, IG and SP, Gwalior by

sending the same through registered post alleging that they have

married and in case if any complaint is made, then it may be treated
        THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        WP-7060-2021
    (Smt. Sapna Savita & Another Vs. State of M.P. & Others)


as false and no criminal case should be registered either against the

petitioners or family members of petitioner No.2. A bald allegation

was also mentioned that since the family members of petitioner No.1

are annoyed with the marriage of petitioners and, they have extended

a threat to them and, accordingly they have also filed a writ petition

before the High Court of M.P. and thus it is prayed that the protection

may be granted to the petitioners.

       Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that

although the petitioners claimed themselves to be the married persons

and in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the

case of Lata Singh Vs. State of UP, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475,

the petitioners are entitled for protection but it appears that this

petition has been filed without there being any threat by the family

members of petitioner No.1. By referring to the representation

(Annexure P/6) it is submitted that as per the marriage certificate

(Annexure P/3), the petitioners got married on 12.3.2021 at 5:30 in

the evening. From the postal receipt, it is clear that the

representations were sent by registered post at 18:37 hours i.e. just

one hour after the marriage. It is also mentioned in the representation

that the petitioners have already filed a writ petition before this Court

seeking protection whereas this petition was filed on 19.3.2021. Thus
        THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        WP-7060-2021
    (Smt. Sapna Savita & Another Vs. State of M.P. & Others)


it is clear that the apprehension expressed by the petitioners in their

representation is frivolous and no cause of action has arisen.

          Heard the learned counsel for the State and perused the

contents of the writ petition.

          Neither in the writ petition nor in the representation the

petitioners have disclosed the date and time of threat extended by the

parents of the petitioner No.1. Even the parents of the petitioner No.1

have not been arrayed as respondents. Under these circumstances,

this Court is not in a position to consider the allegations made against

the parents of petitioner No.1 in this writ petition.

However, it is equally true that when two major persons have

decided to live their life as per their own choices then the parents of

either of the major persons have no right to interfere with their

peaceful life. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated

26.3.2021 passed an interim order which reads as under:

Meanwhile, as an interim measure, it is directed that if petitioners satisfy the Police that they are of marriageable age and furnish proof of marriage, then protection as claimed shall be extended till the next date of hearing.

Accordingly, it is directed that if the petitioners satisfy the

police that they are of marriageable age and furnish proof of marriage

and also point out the incident of threat, then the protection as

claimed shall be extended as held by the Supreme Court in the case THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP-7060-2021 (Smt. Sapna Savita & Another Vs. State of M.P. & Others)

of Lata Singh (supra). It is further clarified that if any F.I.R. has

already been lodged or any order has already been passed in any

other proceedings, then this order shall not effect the same.

With aforesaid observations, the petition is finally

disposed of.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Aman Aman Tiwari 2021.06.16 11:51:12 +05'30'