Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nazama vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:26816) on 4 June, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:26816]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1603/2025
1. Nazama D/o Jusab Khan, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Reechholi, Dist. Barmer, At Present Balotra (Barmer), Raj.
2. Mehbub Khan S/o Fakir Khan, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Reechholi, Dist. Barmer, At Present Balotra (Barmer), Raj.
3. Gulam Khan S/o Fazal Khan, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Reechholi, Dist. Barmer, At Present Balotra (Barmer), Raj.
4. Anvar Khan S/o Fakeer Khan, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Reechholi, Dist. Barmer, At Present Balotra (Barmer), Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Superintendent Of Police, Balotra.
3. The Station House Officer, Police Station Pachpadra, Dist.
Balotra.
4. Rahim Khan S/o Alikhan, R/o Reechholi, Dist. Barmer, At
Present Balotra (Barmer), Raj.
5. Hanif Khan S/o Fakir Khan, R/o Reechholi, Dist. Barmer,
At Present Balotra (Barmer), Raj.
6. Shareef Khan S/o Kheru Khan, R/o Reechholi, Dist.
Barmer, At Present Balotra (Barmer), Raj.
7. Arbaj Khan S/o Sumar Khan, R/o Reechholi, Dist. Barmer,
At Present Balotra (Barmer), Raj.
8. Shreef Kha S/o Nure Khan, R/o Reechholi, Dist. Barmer,
At Present Balotra (Barmer), Raj.
9. Talab Khan S/o Mangeen Khan, R/o Reechholi, Dist.
Barmer, At Present Balotra (Barmer), Raj.
10. Lateef S/o Mangeen Khan, R/o Reechholi, Dist. Barmer, At
Present Balotra (Barmer), Raj.
11. Sakur Khan S/o Lateef Khan, R/o Reechholi, Dist. Barmer,
At Present Balotra (Barmer), Raj.
12. Aawesh Khan S/o Lateef Khan, R/o Reechholi, Dist.
Barmer, At Present Balotra (Barmer), Raj.
13. Muse Khan S/o Arab Khan, R/o Reechholi, Dist. Barmer,
At Present Balotra (Barmer), Raj.
(Downloaded on 04/06/2025 at 07:47:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26816] (2 of 4) [CRLW-1603/2025]
14. Anwar Khan S/o Arab Khan, R/o Reechholi, Dist. Barmer,
At Present Balotra (Barmer), Raj.
15. Samde Khan S/o Arab Khan, R/o Reechholi, Dist. Barmer,
At Present Balotra (Barmer), Raj.
16. Mehardeen S/o Sakar Khan, R/o Reechholi, Dist. Barmer,
At Present Balotra (Barmer), Raj.
17. Ahmad Khan S/o Raheem Khan, R/o Reechholi, Dist.
Barmer, At Present Balotra (Barmer), Raj.
18. Ridmal Khan S/o Husen Khan, R/o Reechholi, Dist.
Barmer, At Present Balotra (Barmer), Raj.
19. Ganee Khun S/o Husen Khan, R/o Reechholi, Dist.
Barmer, At Present Balotra (Barmer), Raj.
20. Abde Khan S/o Meer Khan, R/o Reechholi, Dist. Barmer,
At Present Balotra (Barmer), Raj.
21. Meer Mohd. S/o Hazi Abele Khan, R/o Reechholi, Dist.
Barmer, At Present Balotra (Barmer), Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Kadir
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sameer Pareek, P.P.
Mr. D.S. Pidiyaar, AAAG for Mr. S.S.
Ladrecha, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH (VACATION JUDGE)
Order
04/06/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not want to press
the criminal writ petition qua petitioner Nos.3 and 4. Hence, this
criminal writ petition is dismissed as not pressed qua petitioner
Nos.3 and 4.
2. As far as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, 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
[2025:RJ-JD:26816] (3 of 4) [CRLW-1603/2025]
being major persons, claim to have 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 nos.4 to 21.
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
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 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
[2025:RJ-JD:26816] (4 of 4) [CRLW-1603/2025]
take necessary action, after verifying the facts, to ensure that the
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
110-Taruna/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
