Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sarita vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:43336) on 22 October, 2024

[2024:RJ-JD:43336]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
               S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2254/2024

1.       Sarita D/o Late Sh. Ved Prakash, Aged About 22 Years,
         W/o Shri Subhash Ji, R/o Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan, At
         Present R/o In Chanderi Bari, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
2.       Keshra Ram S/o Sh. Kumbha Ram, Aged About 20 Years,
         R/o Chanderi Bari, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary, Ministry
         Of Home Affairs, Jaipur (Raj.)
2.       The Superintendent Of Police, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
3.       The Superintendent Of Police, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
4.       The Station House Officer (Sho), Police Station Pallu, Dist.
         Hanumangarh (Raj.)
5.       The    Station    House        Officer       (Sho),     Police   Station
         Chunagarh, Dist. Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)
6.       Sh. Subhash Spouse/o Smt. Sarita, R/o Village Netewala,
         Dist. Sri Ganganagar, Raj.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Pankaj Arora
For Respondent(s)         :     Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order (Oral)

22/10/2024

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 No.6.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners

want to marry each other. However, parents/relatives of petitioner

[2024:RJ-JD:43336] (2 of 5) [CRLW-2254/2024]

No.1, i.e. respondent No.6 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 No.6.

5. Facts, as pleaded in the petition, succinctly are that

petitioner No.1 born on 01.01.1997 and petitioner No.2 born on

20.01.2005, 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 has been

threatening them with dire consequences. Apprehension is that

parents may even will kill both petitioners by tracing them from

wherever they are.

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

respondent 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

[2024:RJ-JD:43336] (3 of 5) [CRLW-2254/2024]

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

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 :-

[2024:RJ-JD:43336] (4 of 5) [CRLW-2254/2024]

"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 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

[2024:RJ-JD:43336] (5 of 5) [CRLW-2254/2024]

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".