Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Neetu Kushwah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2021
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 10346/2020
Smt. Neetu Kushwaha and Anr. V. Superintendent of Police and Ors.
Gwalior, Dated : 17.03.2021
Shri Anil Shakya, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Varun Kaushik Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Shri Veer Singh Sisodiya, Advocate for respondent no. 3.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
^^,& izfrpkfpdkdrkZ dzekad&1 yxk;r 4 dks funsZf'kr fd;k
tkos fd og ;kfpdkdrkZx.k ds ekufld ,oa 'kkjhfjd :i ls fdlh Hkh
izdkj ls izfrkfM+r ,oa ija'kku u djsa rFkk vU; ds }kjk Hkh
;kfpdkdrkZx.k ds O;fDrxr thou esa dksbZ gLr{ksi u djsaA
ch& izfr;kfpdkdrkZ dzekad&1 ,oa 2 dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkos
fd og ;kfpdkdrkZx.k ds tkueky dh j{kk djsa vkSj mUgsa lqj{kk iznku
djsaA
lh& izfr;kfpdkdrkZ dzekad&3 ,oa 4 dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkos
fd og ;kfpdkdrkZx.k ds oSokfgd nkEiR; thou esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dk
O;o/kku mRiUu u djsaA ;kfpdkdrkZx.k dks Lo;a vFkok vU; fdlh
ek/;e ls {kfr u igqp
a k;sA
Mh& vU; dksbZ lgk;rk ,oa funsZ'k tks izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa
ds vuqlkj mfpr ,oa vko';d gksa iznku dh tkosA**
It is the claim of the petitioners that the date of birth of
petitioner no. 1 is 01.01.2001 and has accordingly annexed copy of
the marks sheet of Class VIII. The petitioners have performed
marriage in Arya Samaj Mandir on 29.06. 2020 and since respondents
nos. 3 and 4 are threatening the petitioners, therefore, they are
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 10346/2020
Smt. Neetu Kushwaha and Anr. V. Superintendent of Police and Ors.
entitled for the police protection in the light of the judgment passed
by the Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh v. State of U.P
reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475.
This Court by order dated 22.01.2021 had directed the State
authorities to verify the marks sheet as to whether it is original or a
forged marks sheet and the record of Arya Samaj Mandir was also
directed to be produced and accordingly the State has produced the
photo copy of the record of Arya Samaj Mandir and has also filed
additional return. It is the case of respondent no. 2 that the marks
sheet filed by the petitioner no. 1 before Arya Samaj Mandir as well
as along with writ petition is false and her date of birth is not
01.01.2001. However, the State authorities have collected the
certificate from the Office of Head Master, Middle School,
Chakrampur, Tehsil Narwar Distt. Shivpuri, according to which date
of birth of petitioner no. 1 in the school record is 08.02.2000.
Counsel for respondents no. 3 submitted that the petitioner
no.1 had not taken any education, however, when the counsel for
respondent no. 3 was directed to point out from the pleadings, then
Shri Sisodiya referred paragraph-8 of his return which reads as
under:-
^^8- ;gfd] Jheku U;k;ky; es yafcr ;kfpdk es izLrqr
nLrkost esa ,usDtj ih&14 es izLrqr nLrkost bls ;kfpdkdrkZ uhrw
dh d{kk 8 dh vadlwph gksuk crkbZ xbZ gSA tks fd dwVjpuk dj
cukbZ xbZ gS D;ksfd uhrw fo'odekZ dHkh Hkh 8oh d{kk es fdlh Hkh
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 10346/2020
Smt. Neetu Kushwaha and Anr. V. Superintendent of Police and Ors.
Ldwy es i<us ds fy;s ugh xb gS cfYd uhrw dh i<kbZ izkFkfed
'kkyk dh Hkh iw.kZ ugh dh xbZ gS rFkk dsoy mls fgUnh Hkk"kk dk
v{kj Kku gSA**
From the plain reading of the return, it is clear that it has been
drafted cleverly by respondents no. 3 and 4. Counsel for respondents
no. 3 and 4 have not claimed that the petitioner no. 1 is an illiterate
girl and had never gone to any school but they have claimed that the
petitioner no. 1 had never prosecuted her studies in Class VIII.
However, during the course of arguments a different argument was
advanced to the effect that petitioner no. 1 had never gone to any
school.
It is always expected that the lawyer must assist the Court and
should not make any misleading arguments.
Be that whatever it may be.
According to respondents nos. 1 and 2 correct date of birth of
petitioner no. 1 is 08.02.2020.
In this writ petition, this Court is only required to verify as to
whether petitioner no. 1 was major on the date of marriage or not. If
the age of the petitioner no. 1 is calculated on the basis of date of
birth disclosed by the petitioner no. 1, then it would be clear that
she was above 19 but below 20 years of age on the date of marriage
and if the age of the petitioner no. 1 is calculated on the basis of date
of birth disclosed by the State, then it is clear that petitioner no. 1 was
above 20 years of age on the date of marriage.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 10346/2020
Smt. Neetu Kushwaha and Anr. V. Superintendent of Police and Ors.
Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, there was no
good reason for the petitioner no. 1 to file any forged marks sheet as
she did not try to enhance her age in order to get herself married.
Be that whatever it may be.
Without entering into the controversy as to whether date of
birth of the petitioner no. 1 is 01.01.2001 or 08.02.2000, this Court
is of the considered opinion that in either case, petitioner no. 1 was
major on the date of her marriage.
At this stage counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 submits that
allegations of harassment and threatening made against them are false
and they have never threatened the petitioners and they will never
threatened them in future also and the petitioners may live their
marriage life as per their own wishes.
In view of the statement made by counsel for respondents nos.
3 and 4 coupled with the fact that petitioners are major and they are
free to live their life as per their wishes, it is directed that they are
entitled for police protection in case any criminal offence is
committed or any rights are violated by respondents no. 3 and 4 or by
their any agent.
With the aforesaid observations, this petition is finally disposed
of.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
ar
ABDUR RAHMAN
2021.03.18
10:45:42 +05'30'
