SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(MP) 442

VIVEK RUSIA
Aasma Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Akash Rathi for petitioners; Aditya Garh, Government Advocate for respondents/ State.

ORDER

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking police protection. According to them, they are major and performed their marriage, but they are receiving threat from their parents.

2. If the petitioners are major and entered into the marriage voluntarily, then they should not be harassed by any one, just because they have objection with their marriage. In future, if the petitioners receive any threat or fear to their life from anyone, in order to avoid any harassment, the petitioners are certainly entitled for police protection.

3. That, in case of Lata Singh v. State of U.P. Another : AIR 2006 SC 2522, the apex Court has observed as under :

“this is free and democratic country and once a person becomes a major he or she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter caste of inter religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut-off social relation with the son or daughter, but they can give threats or commit of instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person undergoes such inter caste or inter religious relationship marriage. We therefore direct that the administrative/ police authorities throughout the country will s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top