Shivani Patel vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:26842)
2025 Latest Caselaw 1490 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Shivani Patel vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:26842) on 5 June, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:26842]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
               S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1604/2025

Shivani Patel D/o Shri Manna Lal Patel, Aged About 19 Years, R/o
Vagpur P.s. Kherwada Dist. Udaipur
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Sho, P.s. Rishabhdev
3.       Sho, P.s. Kherwada
4.       Superintendent Of Police, Udaipur
5.       Manna Lal Patel S/o Bada Ji, R/o Vagpur P.s. Kherwada,
         Dist. Udaipur,raj. (Father)
6.       Smt. Laxmi Devi W/o Manna Lal Patel, R/o Vagpur P.s.
         Kherwada, Dist. Udaipur,raj. (Mother)
7.       Sanjay S/o Shankar Lal Ji, R/o Dholiya Dungarpur (Jija)
8.       Chandu Lal S/o Na Malum, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
         Baydi Dist. Udaipur
9.       Suresh S/o Kalu Ram, R/o Mahudra P.s. Kherwada
         Udaipur (Cousin Brother Of Petitioner)
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Jitendra Ojha
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP



HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH (VACATION JUDGE)

Order

05/06/2025

1. The criminal writ petition has been preferred by the

petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking

direction for being provided with adequate security and protection.

2. The petitioner being a major as asserted that she deserves

to get married with one Nikhil son of Dinesh and she is residing

[2025:RJ-JD:26842] (2 of 3) [CRLW-1604/2025]

with Nikhil's mother-Smt. Varsha Devi at her own free Will and

against the wishes of her family members, private respondents.

3. Petitioner, who is major and cannot be denied protection of

their life and liberty since it is a fundamental right of every citizen

being part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as has been

observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Khushboo Vs.

Kanniammal [(2010)5 SCC 600] and Joseph Shine Vs. Union of

India [(2019)3 SCC 39]. Thus, the petitioner deserves protection

of her life and liberty in accordance with law.

4. This Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, is not inclined

to enter into examining the validity of legality of the age of the

petitioner. Therefore, it does not render any affirmation of legality

and validity of the age or willingness of petitioner. However,

keeping in mind the propositions of law set forth by the Apex

Court in a catena of judgments and in order to protect the

fundamental rights of the petitioner for her life and liberty

guaranteed under the Constitution, this petition is disposed of with

liberty to the petitioner to approach the Superintendent of Police,

Udaipur for ventilation of her grievances.

5. In case the petitioner move any application, it is expected

from the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur to take necessary

action to ensure that no illegal hindrance is caused to the peaceful

life and liberty of the petitioner by private respondents, but only

after verifying the facts, if required.

6. The Superintendent of Police, Udaipur shall ensure that no

harm is caused to the petitioner, who is staying with Varsha Devi

at her Will.

[2025:RJ-JD:26842] (3 of 3) [CRLW-1604/2025]

7. However, it is made clear that this order will not affect the

civil/criminal proceedings, if any, in the present matter.

8. The criminal writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

(SANDEEP SHAH (VACATION JUDGE)),J 120-charul/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)