Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 3308
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA th ON THE 5 OF JUNE, 2023 WRIT PETITION No. 12465 of 2023 BETWEEN:- 1. RANI MAKWANA W/O HARIOM CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE 155 SAGDOD DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. HARIOM CHOUDHARY S/O KRAPARAM, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 155, SAGDOD INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS (BY SHRI MUKESH KUMAWAT - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH HOME AFFAIRS THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN, DISTRICT BHOPLA.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE GRAMIN DEPALPUR INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. OFFICER IN CHARGE OF POLICE STATION BETMA DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. GAJRAJ SINGH S/O LATE KESHARSINGH MAKWANA OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE H. NO. 263 VILLAGE SAGROD TEHSIL DEPALPUR DIST INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. ABHISHEK S/O GAJRAJ SINGH OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE H. NO. 263 VILLAGE SAGROD TEHSIL DEPALPUR DIST INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. MOHAN S/O LATE KESHARSINGH MAKWANA OCCUPATION: SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT H. NO. 263 VILLAGE SAGROD TEHSIL DEPALPUR DIST INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. DINESH S/O LATE RATANSINGH MORI OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILLAGE BANGARDA TEHSIL AND DIST. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI BHUVAN DESHMUKH - G.A. FOR RESPONDENT NO.1-3)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Mukesh Kumawat,Advocate General
ORDER
1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioners inter alia seeking a direction to the respondents to provide protection to them against the private respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners who are major are living together by their free consent without any pressure. However, the family members of the petitioner no.1 are harassing and victimizing the petitioners. It is further submitted that the instant petition may be disposed of with the direction to the Superintendent of Police to provide protection to the petitioners. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475 as well as in the case of Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2018) 7 SCC 192.
4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate fairly submitted that in case the petitioners approach the police authorities, suitable action in the matter shall be taken.
5. Taking into account the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that if protection is sought by the petitioners against any harassment or intimidation against their life, liberty and dignity, the same would be granted to them by the respondents/Police Authorities on verifying the genuineness of the apprehension expressed and their marriageable age in accordance with law in terms of the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Lata Singh(Supra) as well as Shakti Vahini (Supra).
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to validity of the marriage of the petitioners.
7. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
V. JUDGE
