Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prajapati Kavita Champalal vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:42178) on 16 October, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:42178]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2182/2024
1. Prajapati Kavita Champalal D/o Sh. Champalal, Aged
About 19 Years, R/o Bharwad Bas, Ram Bhag Road, Navi
Sunderpuri Gandhidham, Dist. Kacchh, Gujrat.
2. Praveen Kumar S/o Sh. Balwanta Ram, Aged About 19
Years, R/o Mindawas, Post Lunawa, Teh. Bhinmal, Dist.
Jalore. At Present Both Are R/o Mindawas, Post Lunawa,
Teh. Bhinmal, Dist. Jalore.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. SP, Dist. Gandhidham
3. SHO, PS Chawala Chok, B Division, Gandhidham
4. SHO, PS Dist. Jalore.
5. SHO, PS, Dist. Bhinmal
6. Prajapati Champalal S/o Gajaram, R/o Bharwad Bas, Ram
Bhag Road, Navi Sunderpuri Gandhidham, Dist. Kacchh,
Gujrat.
7. Basant Bhai S/o Sh. Bhura Ram Prajapati, R/o Bharwad
Bas, Ram Bhag Road, Navi Sunderpuri Gandhidham, Dist.
Kacchh, Gujrat.
8. Ranchor Bhai S/o Sh. Bhura Ram Prajapati, R/o Bharwad
Bas, Ram Bhag Road, Navi Sunderpuri Gandhidham, Dist.
Kacchh, Gujrat.
9. Ratan Bhai S/o Sh. Dama Ram Prajapati, R/o Bharwad
Bas, Ram Bhag Road, Navi Sunderpuri Gandhidham, Dist.
Kacchh, Gujrat.
10. Suresh Bhai S/o Sh. Chaina Ram, R/o Sarnau, Teh. And
Dist. Sanchore.
11. Krishna Bhai S/o Sh. Aja Ram Prajapat, R/o Maitriwada,
Teh. Raniwara, Dist. Jalore.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.L. Vishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.R. Choudhary, PP
(Downloaded on 17/10/2024 at 09:41:09 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:42178] (2 of 5) [CRLW-2182/2024]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
16/10/2024
1. Petitioners herein, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the
nature of mandamus directing the respondents to protect the life
and liberty of petitioners as they apprehend threat at the hands of
private respondent Nos.6 to 11.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners
want to marry each other. However, parents/relatives of petitioner
No.1, i.e. respondent Nos.6 to 11 forcibly want to marry her with
some other boy.
3. On advance service of copy of the petition, learned Public
Prosecutor appears and accepts notice on behalf of State of
Rajasthan.
4. Given the nature of order being passed, there is no necessity
to seek any return by the official respondents or even to serve the
private respondent Nos.6 to 11.
5. Facts, as pleaded in the petition, succinctly are that
petitioner No.1 born on 18.12.2005 and petitioner No.2 born on
14.02.2005, are purportedly in love with each other. They have
been living together in relationship for past couple of days.
6. Petitioners have decided to get married once petitioner No.2
attains the marriageable age but parents of petitioner No.1 are
against their marriage. Ever since they started staying together in
a live-in relationship, private respondent No.6 to 11 have been
threatening them with dire consequences. Apprehension is that
parents may even will kill both petitioners by tracing them from
wherever they are.
[2024:RJ-JD:42178] (3 of 5) [CRLW-2182/2024]
7. In the circumstances, the petitioners approached the police
authorities with necessary documents to safeguard their life and
liberty, but no action is being taken on same. Hence, the instant
petition.
8. The petitioners state that they are living in constant danger
of their life, as they have every apprehension that private
respondents will catch them and carry out their threats and may
go to the extent of even committing their murder. The petitioners
are, therefore, running here and there and unable to find any safe
place to live in the absence of protection of their life and liberty.
Hence the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions to
the official respondents to provide protection qua their life and
liberty.
9. Controversy that needs adjudication now thus is whether an
appropriate writ/direction or order is warranted to allay the
apprehension of the petitioners for granting protection to them for
enforcement of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The issue in hand, however, is not marriage
of the petitioners, but the deprivation of fundamental right of
seeking protection of life and liberty. I have no hesitation to hold
that Constitutional Fundamental Right under Article 21 of
Constitution of India stands on a much higher pedestal. Being
sacrosanct under the Constitutional Scheme it must be protected,
regardless of the solemnization of an invalid or void marriage or
even the absence of any marriage between the parties.
10. It is the bounden duty of the State, as per the Constitutional
obligations casted upon it, to protect the life and liberty of every
citizen. Right to human life is to be treated on much higher
[2024:RJ-JD:42178] (4 of 5) [CRLW-2182/2024]
pedestal, regardless of a citizen being minor or major. Mere fact
that petitioners are not of marriageable age in the present case
would not deprive them of their fundamental right, as envisaged
in Constitution of India, being citizens of India.
11. Reference may be had, in the aforesaid context, to a
judgment rendered by Punjab & Haryana High Court in CRWP No.
4725 of 2021 titled "Seema Kaur and another v. State of
Punjab and others", wherein, speaking for court, Sant Parkash,
J., opined as under :-
"This Court in the past and also recently has allowed
protection to those runaway couples, even though they were not
married and were in a live-in relationship, and in cases where
the marriage was invalid (as one of the parties though a major,
was not of age as per Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act).
Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment rendered
by the Division Bench in Rajwinder Kaur and another Versus
State of Punjab, 2014 (4) RCR (Criminal) 785 where it was
held that marriage is not a must for security to be provided to a
runaway couple. The police authorities were directed to ensure
that no harm was caused by any one to the life and liberty of
the couple. Similar views have been taken by the Coordinate
Benches in the case of Rajveer Kaur Versus State of Punjab,
2019 (3) RCR (Civil) 478 and in Priyapreet Kaur Versus State
of Punjab, 2021 (1) RCR (Civil) 604 amongst others. Different
High Courts too have allowed protection to runaway couples
who are not married. Again reference can be made to a recent
judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court in Kamini
Devi vs. State of UP,2021(1) RCR (Civil) 421 and in Bhagwan
Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396.
The concept of a live in relationship may not be acceptable to
all, but it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal
one or that living together without the sanctity of marriage
constitutes an offence. Even under The Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a woman who is in a
'domestic relationship' has been provided protection,
maintenance etc. It is interesting to note that the word 'wife'
has not been used under the said Act. Thus, the female live-in-
partners and the children of live-in couples have been
accorded adequate protection by the Parliament.
Article 21 as enshrined in the Constitution of India provides for
its citizen to a right to life and personal liberty, with a
[2024:RJ-JD:42178] (5 of 5) [CRLW-2182/2024]
stipulation that they shall not be deprived of it except
according to a procedure established by law. In the case of
Shakti Vahini Versus Union of India and others, 2018 (5)
R.C.R (Criminal) 981, the Supreme court has held "The right
to exercise Assertion of choice is an insegregable facet of
liberty and dignity. That is why the French philosopher and
thinker, Simone Weil, has said:-"Liberty, taking the word in its
concrete sense consists in the ability to choose." At this stage,
one cannot also lose sight of honour killings which are
prevalent in northern parts of India, particularly in parts of
States of Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh.
Honour killing is a result of people marrying without their
family's acceptance, and sometimes for marrying outside their
caste or religion. Once an individual, who is a major, has
chosen his/her partner, it is not for any other person, be it a
family member, to object and cause a hindrance to their
peaceful existence. It is for the State at this juncture, to ensure
their protection and their personal liberty. It would be a
travesty of justice in case protection is denied to persons who
have opted to reside together without the sanctity of marriage
and such persons have to face dire consequences at the hands
of persons from whom protection is sought. In case such a
course is adopted and protection denied, the courts would also
be failing in their duty to provide its citizens a right to their life
and liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India and to uphold to the Rule of law".
I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed in the
judgment ibid.
12. As an upshot, the Superintendent of Police, Gandhidham is
directed to verify the contents of the petition, particularly the
threat perception of the petitioners, and thereafter, provide
necessary protection qua their life and liberty, if deemed fit.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
228-skm/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
