Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Shelo Shevar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 March, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6653
1 WP-10235-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 21st OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 10235 of 2025
SMT SHELO SHEVAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Keher Singh Kaurav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Deepak Khot - G.A. for the respondent/State.
ORDER
In this petition, the petitioners inter alia seek direction to the
respondents No.1 to 3 to provide protection to them.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners informs this Court that petitioner
No.1- Smt. Shelo Shewar is aged about 22 years and her date of birth is 08-
10-2002 whereas petitioner No.2-Roni Jatav is aged about 20 years and his
date of birth is 01-01-2005. Although petitioner No.2 as per Section 5(iii) of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not of marriageable age, as he has not
completed 21 years of age and even as per the Prohibition of Child Marriage
Act, 2006, he may be a child but so far as The Majority Act, 1875 is
concerned as per Section 3 of the same, petitioner No.2 is major. He relied
upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Hardev Singh Vs.
Harpreet Kaur and Others, (2020) 19 SCC 504 and High Court of Delhi in
the case of Court on its own Motion (Lajja Devi) & Ors. Vs. State & Ors.,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6653
2 WP-10235-2025
2012 SCC Online Del 3937 as well as of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
High Court in the case of Gurdeep Kaur and Another Vs. State of Punjab and
Others decided on 03-10-2023 in CRWP-9689-2023 (O&M ) to support his
submissions, thus, he submits that petitioners are entitled to get protection as
per Article 21 of the Constitution of India also.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners
who are major, have solemnized marriage and they are living together by
their free consent without any pressure. However, the family members of the
petitioner no.1 are harassing and victimizing the petitioners. It is further
submitted that the instant petition may be disposed of with direction to the
Superintendent of Police to provide protection to the petitioners. In support
of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on
the decision rendered in the case of Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. and
Another reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475 as well as in the case of Shakti Vahini
vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2018) 7 SCC 192.
3. Shri Deepak Khot, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State
while placing reliance in the matter of Ankita Argal and another Vs. State of
M.P. and others, 2021 (4) M.P.L.J. 451 has argued that Coordinate Bench of
this Court in similar circumstances has denied protection and had held that
the arguments with regard to grant of protection is misconceived and
contrary to the provisions of Indian Penal Code and as it would be a case
where the girl under the bonafide belief that she is the legally wedded wife of
the boy, may enter into physical relationship with him, which would trigger a
situation which shall be squarely covered by the provisions of section 375
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6653
3 WP-10235-2025
(II) of IPC which is punishable under section 376 of Indian Penal Code and
under these circumstances it was held that if any FIR or offence is registered
against the boy then the investigation cannot be stifled in the mid way
specifically when the boy has given a bonafide belief to the girl that she is
the legally wedded wife and as in the present case merely by sharing of
garlands no one would become a legally wedded wife of a person, therefore,
the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Though it is true that the petitioner no.2 boy had not attained the age
of 21 years as is required for consummating marriage and this Court cannot
accede to the prayer for protecting the marriage, but it can extend protection
simplicitor assuming the couple to be 'live-in-relationship' which has been
recognized by Courts.
6. Taking into account the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with the
direction to the Superintendent of Police, Morena to look into the matter and
take appropriate steps for providing protection to the petitioners
expeditiously, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Lata Singh
and Shakti Vahini (supra).
7. The Superintendent of Police, Morena is directed to verify the
factum of 'live-in-relationship' as well as factum of any threat from anybody
only then if it deems fit.
8. Since this Court has not recognized the very marriage of the
petitioners, in future if any criminal case is registered at the instance of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6653
4 WP-10235-2025
petitioner No.1 against petitioner No.2, then the same may be dealt with as
provided under the law.
9. The petition stands disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
