IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE th ON THE 5 OF JULY, 2023 WRIT PETITION No. 15003 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

1. AKANKSHA CHOUHAN D/O SHRI CHANDRASHEKHAR CHOUHAN, AGED-21 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE SETREJO TEH KALPEL DISTRICT JALOUN CURRENT ADD BADAGAON DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SONU SINGH S/O SHRI PREM SINGH, AGED-26 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE GURYACHI TEHSIL GOHAD RATBA DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI ANAND PUROHIT- ADVOCATE)

AND

1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE POLICE HEADQUARTERS GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE POLICE HEADQUARTERS JALOUN (UTTAR PRADESH)

4. STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE HEADQUARTERS PS MORAR, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE HEADQUARTERS P.S CHURKHI JALOUN (UTTAR PRADESH)

6. NISHANT CHOUHAN S/O SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH CHOUHAN R/O VILL. PIPROUNDHA JALOUN (UTTAR PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI

7. CHANDRA SHEKHAR CHOUHAN S/O SHRI GURMUKH SINGH CHOUHAN R/O VILL. SATREJO TEHSIL KALPEL DISTRICT JALAUN (UTTAR PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI S.S. KUSHWAH- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs :-

“7.1. The Respondent authorities may be directed not to harass the petitioners.

7.2. The Respondent authorities may also be directed that they shall provide protection to the petitioners from the illegal act of the private respondents.”

Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case same may kindly be granted to the petitioner.

The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking a relief of Police Protection from private Respondents, who happens to be her husband and her father and even after there being pendency of matrimonial dispute between them, is harassing her and is objecting her to live-in relation with another person, which she had contracted at her free will.

Placing reliance in the matter of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475, it was contended that if two major persons are living in live-in-relationship, the Police is bound to provide police protection. Further reliance was placed in the matter of Shakti Vahini Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2018) 7 SCC 192.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI Per contra, learned Government Advocate in reply contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in above matters had allowed protection to genuine couples, who are under threat after marriage, for one reason or the other, but both the citations are not applicable in the present case simply because, the Petitioner wants protection from her husband, while she is observing bigamy, by living with a stranger, before getting divorced. In such type of cases no sympathy is required to be shown and writ of mandamus could not be or should not be issued in such matter.

Looking to the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. This Court cannot close its eyes and give an approval of stamp to the illegal acts of the Petitioners.

The Petition is hereby dismissed.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)

JUDGE Chandni Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI