ORAL JUDGMENT

1 Rule. Ms. Chetna M Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents.

2 This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred with the following prayers:

“ 9 a) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent no.

3 to inquire and investigate the missing complaint lodged by the brother of the petitioner no.1 at Gandhidham-A Division Police Station being no. 13/2015 dtd.30.03.2015.

b) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and thereby be pleased to direct respondent no.3 to provide police protection in case of parents or relatives of the petitioner no.1 have filed any false case or cause any harassment to the petitioner while their stay at Gandhidham.

C) Your Lordships may be pleased grant such other and further relief as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.”

3 At the outset, Mr. F B Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for the petitioners, states that the petitioners do not press the prayer made at paragraph 9 a), but, confines the prayer only to that contained in paragraph 9 b), regarding police protection being provided to them.

4 It is the case of the petitioners that they are in love with each other and wanted to get married. Their relationship was opposed by the parents of petitioner No.1. Therefore, according to the petitioners, they have got married to each other against the wishes of parents of petitioner No.1. The petitioner no.1 has voluntarily left her house, as has petitioner no.2. They have entered into an agreement (Maitri Karaar) with each other. It is further the case of the petitioner that a marriage ceremony was performed at a temple in Patan, photographs of which are annexed with the petition. However, the marriage has not been registered. According to the petitioners, they apprehend that the parents of petitioner No.1 would forcibly take her away with them, if they appear before the Police, as a complaint has been lodged against them by the brother of petitioner No.1.

5 Under the circumstances, the petitioners pray for police protection.

6 Mr. F B Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for the petitioners, submits that as petitioners are facing threats from the relatives and family members of petitioner No.1 and that they apprehend that she would be taken away forcibly by her parents, the prayer for police protection may be granted.

7 Ms. Chetna M Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that she has no objection if appropriate directions are issued to respondent No.3, District Superintendent of Police, Bhuj, in this regard.

8 Learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2007(1) GLH 41 in support of his averments.

9 This Court has heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and has taken into consideration the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another. reported in 2007 (1) GLH 41.

10 In Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

(supra), the Supreme Court has held as below:

“7. The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when we have to be united to face the challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence, inter-caste marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying the caste system. However, disturbing news are coming from several parts of the country that young men and women who undergo inter- caste marriage, are threatened with violence, or violence is actually committed on them. In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whos