Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Geeta vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:43681) on 23 October, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:43681]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1872/2024
1. Geeta D/o Kasturram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village
Guda Balotan, P.s. Ahore, Tehsil Ahore, Dist. Jalore (Raj.)
2. Madanlal S/o Natharamji, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Village Karmawas, Tehsil Samdari, P.s. Samdari, Dist.
Balotra (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Home Ministry
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarters
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Jalore (Raj.)
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Balotra (Raj.)
5. The S.h.o., Police Station Ahore (Jalore)
6. The S.h.o., Police Station Samdari (Balotra)
7. Suresh S/o Kuiya Ram, R/o Village Marda, P.s.
Ahore,tehsil Ahore, Dist. Jalore (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madan Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
23/10/2024
1. Petition herein, inter-alia, is for issuance of a writ in the
nature of mandamus directing the official respondents to protect
the life and liberty of petitioners as they apprehended threat at
the hands of respondent No.7.
2. Facts, as pleaded in the petition succinctly are that
petitioners are major and have been living together in a
[2024:RJ-JD:43681] (2 of 4) [CRLW-1872/2024]
relationship for past few days. The petitioner No.1 married with
one Suresh. Out of this wedlock three children were borne. No
divorce has been taken by her. In that sense, owing to her
matrimonial discord, petitioners are living together in an
arrangement, what they have termed as live-in-relationship.
3. Ever since they started living together, respondent No.7 have
been threatening them with dire consequences. Apprehension is
that relatives of the petitioners may take law into their own hands
and even kill both petitioners by tracing them from wherever they
are.
4. On advance service of copy of petition. Ms. Sonu Manawat,
PP appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State
of Rajasthan. She submits that she has no objection in case
respondent Nos.3 to 6 are directed to look into the matter on the
aspect of threat perception and to take appropriate action, in
accordance with law.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned PP.
6. In the context of instant case, reference may be had to
Punjab & Haryana High court judgment in Kanti and another Vs.
State of Haryana & Ors. : CRWP-7908/2023 decided on
12.10.2023, wherein it is observed thus:-
"8. The key issue at hand is not the legality of the
petitioners' relationship, qua which they may be liable
for civil as well as criminal consequences in accordance
with law, but whether they are entitled to protection of
their fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution. Must their right to live be upheld,
irrespective of their self-proclaimed live in relationship,
which on the face of it appears to be adulterous?
Pertinently, the couple herein fears for their safety not
from society or State, but from the family members of
petitioner no. 1. The answer to the aforesaid questions,
in the words of Lord J. Denning, simply is, "Be you ever
[2024:RJ-JD:43681] (3 of 4) [CRLW-1872/2024]
so high, the law is above you". In a nation governed by
the Rule of Law, as a citizen you must not and cannot
take the law unto your own hands.
9. Adjudication thus warranted now is, whether an
appropriate direction or order ought to be passed to
allay the apprehensions of the petitioners to save their
lives. Must they pay with their lives for defying the
matrimonial or other relevant penal laws ? For, most
certainly, death is not the penalty for such a defiance,
that too at the hands of the family members!
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 legitimacy of
relationship and/or even the absence of any marriage
between the parties. There may be situations when two
consenting adults, already married, but are living
together without taking divorce; or not earlier married
though adults but not of marriageable age; or being of
marriageable age though not married but living together
in courtship before they decide to get married or simply
want to be live in partners without marriage or any
other likewise situation. Appropriate laws exist for
dealing with cases arising out of such defiance of the
matrimonial or other relevant penal laws, as the case
may be, and the law shall take its own course, which
inter alia includes criminal prosecution, if there is any
offence made out.
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 highest pedestal and cannot be taken away
except in accordance with law. Irrespective of the nature
of their relationship, the police force being the protective
arm of the State is under a duty to protect the citizens'
life. Accordingly, petitioners herein cannot also be
deprived of their said fundamental right."
7. As an upshot, without commenting upon the legality of the
relationship between the petitioners or expressing any opinion on
the merits of their apprehensions, petition is disposed of with a
direction to the Superintendent of Police, Jalore and
Superintendent of Police, Balotra to verify/get verified, as they
may like, the contents of the petition, particularly the threat
perception of the petitioners, and thereafter, proceed in
[2024:RJ-JD:43681] (4 of 4) [CRLW-1872/2024]
accordance with law and, if deemed fit, provide necessary
protection qua their life and liberty.
(ARUN MONGA),J
274-skm/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
