Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Leela D/o Ghevar Ram - Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5045 of 2021
Decided on : 15-09-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Protection of right to life - Freedom of life to all citizens - Right to privacy - Violations of fundamental rights – Principle of constitutional morality – Inherent powers of High Court - Salus populi est supreme lex (safety of people is supreme law) and salus republicae est suprema lex (safety of state is supreme law) - Whether said section of society is a minority or a majority, magna cum laude and creditable principle of constitutional morality, in a constitutional democracy like ours where rule of law prevails, must not be allowed to be trampled by obscure notions of social morality which have no legal tenability - Whether State ought to intervene in personal relationships of adult citizens - Whether State, having a duty of protecting its citizens, is having any kind of restrictions, reservations or exceptions
Findings of the Court: No uncertain terms that emphasis to be given to public morality is minuscule, when they are in conflict with constitutional morality, and that Courts must uphold constitutional morality and rely on same rather than obscure notions of societal morality, which have no legal tenability - Uphold principles of constitutional morality, there exists a parallel duty to not infringe upon personal relationship between two freewilled adults - Whenever constitutional courts come across a situation of transgression or dereliction in sphere of fundamental rights, which are also basic human rights of a section, small part of society, then it is for constitutional courts to ensure, with aid of judicial engagement and creativity, that constitutional morality prevails over social morality - Principle of individual autonomy, which cannot be hampered by societal expectations in vibrant democracy - State’s respect for individual independent choices has to be held high - Court fully values principle that at all junctures constitutional morality has to have an overriding impact upon societal morality - Court cannot sit back and watch transgression or dereliction in sphere of fundamental rights, which are basic human rights - Public morality cannot be allowed to overshadow constitutional morality, particularly when legal tenability of right to protection is paramount - Court is duty bound to act as a protector of rights of individuals, which are under siege with clear intention of obstructing vision of Constitution - Court has even gone to extent of duty of courts to protect rights of prisoners and convicts - Rule of law has to be held at highest pedestal - Constitutional right of protection cannot be abridged, except in manner permitted by law.
Result: Petition disposed of
JUDGMENT :
1. In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.
2. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
(b) The private respondent may kindly be restrained from interfering in peaceful life of the petitioners and their family.
(c) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kind be issued in favour of the petitioners.”
3. The facts of the present case are that petitioner No.1-Leela Bishnoi is in live-in relationship with petitioner No.2-Farsa Ram Bishnoi, even when she was married with one Sunil Bishnoi.
4. As the averments made in the petition would reveal, the petitioner No.1 has serious issues regarding her safety and security, and thus, this petition has been preferred seeking protection, on count of the situation, which has arisen due to her live-in relationship with the petitioner No.2.
5. The petitioner No.1 has alleged in the petition that due to continuous harassment and violence, resulting out of her giving birth to a girl child, she had to make a choice of entering into a live-in relationship to live life with liberty and dignity.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court towards the agreement entered into between petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 regarding live-in relationship dated 13.09.2021, which is on record as Annexure-3.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the record, the age of petitioner No.1 is 26 years and that of petitioner No.2 is 25 years.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the live-in relationship agreement has been drawn on a stamp paper and the same is duly notarized and attested.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submitted that both the petitioners, being major, have agreed to live together in live-in relationship with their free will and consent.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the only prayer made by the petitioners in the present petition is to seek protection, as right to life is a fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and protection of right to life is imbibed in the same, and thus, such fundamental right cannot be done away with, except by due process of law.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the right to life and protection extends unequivocally to both the petitioners, and the legality or illegality of their relationship need not be gone into, as the issue raised is only of protection.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners has emphatically submitted that the present petitioners are not seeking approval of this Hon’ble Court regarding their relationship, but are merely seeking rightful protection of their life and liberty, to which they are entitled under the Constitution of India as citizens of this country. As per learned counsel, the harassment and coercion at the hands of the family members and the relationship is likely to affect their right to life.
13. Learned Public Prosecutor however, opposed the present petition on the ground that the petitioners are not having a relationship, which is recognized by law, and therefore, any kind of protection, if given by this Court, would be against the settled principles of law.
14. Learned Public Prosecutor relied upon the order dated 15.06.2021 passed by a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Smt. Geeta & Anr. Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Writ-C No.7542/2021), whereby the Hon’ble High Court has denied the protection, while observing that the live-in relationship with an already married person is illegal, and the Court, since is unable to condone the illegality, there
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
