Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sunita Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:26871) on 6 June, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:26871]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1641/2025
1. Sunita Choudhary W/o Chimma Ram, Aged About 20
Years, D/o Gosai Ram, R/o Sihado Ki Dhani, Sevniyals,
District Barmer. At Present Dewaniyon Ki Dhani, Shivkar,
District Barmer (Raj)
2. Chimma Ram S/o Shri Rawata Ram, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Dewaniyon Ki Dhani, Shivkar, District Barmer (Raj)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home Ministry, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Inspector General Of Police, Range Jodhpur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Barmer, District Barmer
Rajasthan.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Balotra District, Balotra.
5. The S.h.o., Police Station Sadar Barmer, District Barmer,
Rajasthan.
6. The S.h.o., Police Station Baytu, District Balotra.
7. Divya W/o Shri Mana Ram, R/o Sihado Ki Dhani,
Sevniyala, Police Station Baytu, District Balotra. (Raj)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagdish Kumar Vishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishore Sen, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH (VACATION JUDGE)
Order
06/06/2025
1. The criminal writ petition has been preferred by the
petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a
direction to be provided with adequate security and protection.
The petitioners, both being major persons, claim to have
[2025:RJ-JD:26871] (2 of 3) [CRLW-1641/2025]
solemnized their marriage out of their own free will through a love
marriage. They submit that the marriage was performed against
the wishes of their parents, and thus, they feel a threat to their
lives at the hands of respondents no. 7.
2. The documents pertaining to the age of the petitioners and
the marriage ceremony performed between them have been
placed on record. The petitioners, who are major and having
solemnized their marriage voluntarily, cannot be denied protection
of their life and liberty, since it is a fundamental right of every
citizen as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
This position has been clearly affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal [(2010) 5 SCC 600], Joseph
Shine Vs. Union of India [(2019) 3 SCC 39], and Lata Singh Vs.
State of U.P. [AIR 2006 SC 2522].
3. Thus, taking cue from the proposition of law set forth by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments and in order to
protect the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under
the Constitution, the prayer made by the petitioners to provide
protection to them deserves to be accepted.
4. This Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, is not inclined
to examine the legal validity or otherwise of the marriage of the
petitioners and therefore does not render any opinion on the
same. However, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the
petitioners to approach the Superintendent of Police, Balotra for
ventilation of their grievances.
5. In case the petitioners move any such application, it is
expected from the concerned Superintendent of Police, Balotra to
take necessary action, after verifying the facts, to ensure that the
[2025:RJ-JD:26871] (3 of 3) [CRLW-1641/2025]
petitioners are not illegally hindered in enjoying a peaceful
married life and their liberty by the private respondents who may
be opposing the marriage. Thus, the petition is allowed.
6. However, it is made clear that this order shall not affect any
civil/criminal proceedings, if any, pending or arising out of the
present matter.
7. The criminal writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SANDEEP SHAH (VACATION JUDGE)),J
129-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
