Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Meena Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:26812) on 4 June, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:26812]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1614/2025
1. Meena Choudhary D/o Banka Ram Choudhary, Aged
About 21 Years, Resident Of Prem Naga Rmithiya Sara
Panwara District Barmer
2. Tej Singh S/o Durga Ram, Aged About 29 Years, Resident
Of Near Girls School Baitu Post Baitu District Barmer
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, The State Of Rajasthan
2. Superintendent Of Police, Balotra
3. Station House Officer, Police Station Baitu District Balotra
4. Banka Ram S/o Panna Ram, Resdient Of Prem Nagar
Panwara District Balotra
5. Amra Ram S/o Panna Ram, Resdient Of Prem Nagar
Panwara District Balotra
6. Jasram S/o Poonma Ram Dhatarwal, Resident Of Village
Somesara Tehsil Baitu District Balotra
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Kumar Choudhary
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. 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
solemnized their marriage out of their own free will through a love
marriage. They submit that the marriage was performed against
[2025:RJ-JD:26812] (2 of 3) [CRLW-1614/2025]
the wishes of their parents, and thus, they feel a threat to their
lives at the hands of respondents nos.4 to 6..
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
petitioners are not illegally hindered in enjoying a peaceful
[2025:RJ-JD:26812] (3 of 3) [CRLW-1614/2025]
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
114-Taruna/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
