Back
VISHAL DHAGAT
Ankita Rathore – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Learned counsel appearing for petitioners made a prayer to withdraw his vakalatnama in the writ petition. Counsel for petitioners has filed IA No.19965/2024. It is submitted that he is no longer interested to prosecute writ petition on behalf of petitioners. He may be permitted to withdraw his vakalatnama and petitioners may be informed to engage another Advocate.
2. On submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners, IA No.19965/2024 is allowed. He is permitted to withdraw his vakalatnama on behalf of petitioners.
3. Registry is directed not to reflect the name of counsel in the cause list representing petitioners.
4. Petitioners were called in Court room and statements of petitioners No.1 and 2 are recorded in Chamber as relatives of petitioners may disturb the Court. Copy of statements are made part of record.
5. Petitioners No.1 and 2 submitted that they want to marry each other. They are known to each other for last four years and in live-in relationship for last one year. It is submitted by them that they be granted police protection otherwise petitioner No.1 may be abducted by their family members. They are not able to do their job. There is threat to their live
The court affirmed the fundamental right to personal choice in marriage and the necessity of police protection against familial threats.
The court emphasized the State's role in ensuring protection for individuals wishing to marry across religious lines, despite the marriage being irregular under Mahomedan Law.
Mere apprehensions of danger are not sufficient to warrant police protection.
The court established that individuals have the right to seek police protection when facing threats to their life and liberty, particularly in the context of personal relationships.
Any person of the age of majority is entitled to marry according to their choice, and the police department is duty bound to protect their life and liberty if approached.
The court's decision emphasized the limited scope of its order and the need for the petitioners to approach the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner for their apprehensions, while clarifying that its or....
The court's decision emphasized the importance of providing protection to interfaith married couples facing threats and harassment.
Adults have the fundamental right to choose their life partners, and the state has a duty to provide protection in cases of threats or harm.
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
