Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 27974
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 18th OF APRIL, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 9042 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1.
AAKANSKSHA BADKUL
W/O
SHRI
RAHUL
CHOUKSEY D/O SHRI ANIL BADKUL, AGED
ABOUT
28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE/
STUDENT R/O H. N 136 DAHARA, BAMNODA,
GRAM BAMNODA, TEHSIL TENDUKHEDA AND
DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.
RAHUL CHAUKSEY S/O SHRI DURGA PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
R/O VILLAGE KODAL PO SAMNAPUR DISTRICT
DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI SUDEEP SINGH SAINI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT
VALLABH
BHAWAN,
BHOPAL
(MADHYA
PRADESH)
2.
THE
SUPERINTENDENT
OF
POLICE DAMOH
DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.
THE STATE HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION
SAMNAPUR DAMOH DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
Sudeep Singh Saini,Advocate General
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioners on the averments that the petitioners are major. The petitioner No.1 is stated to be 28 years of age and petitioner No.2 is stated to be 30 years of age.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they were in a romantic relationship with each other and they have married out of their own free will on 23.03.2024. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners belong to different casts backgrounds due to which the family of the petitioner No.1 is against this wedlock and the petitioners apprehend threat to life and safety at the hands of family members of the petitioner No.1.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that every citizen is having right to choose their life partner and consent of family or community is not necessary once two adult individuals agree to enter into wedlock.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgement passed by the Hon'ble Suprme Court in the case of Shakti Vahini Vs. Union of India and Others reported in AIR 2018 SC 1601 and in the case of Lala Singh Vs. State of U.P reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State raises the objection that the petitioners have not submitted any representation before the police authorities disclosing that what type of threat they apprehend at the hands of family of the petitioner No.1, nor they have approached the respondents No.2 and 3 with any grievance.
6. Looking to the contentions raised, this petition is disposed of with direction that the if the petitioners approach the respondent Nos.2 and 3 with proof of their marriage and age, then the respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall be at liberty to verify such facts and look into the grievance of the petitioners regarding with threat to life and liberty at hands of any person.
7. It is made clear that if the petitioners are otherwise found involved in any crime, then this Court has not precluded the law from taking its own course.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE Prar Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Signing time: 4/18/2024 6:33:40 PM
