LAXMANBHAI BABARBHAI RABARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Corpus is brought before us today, by the Police Officer from the Women Protection Home. We inquired from her once again and she has adhered to her version of going with respondent No.6-Devendra alias Kallu Arunsingh Bhadoriya. As we noted on the last occasion on 4/3/2022 that she being on a family way, she does not want to even for the period of two months which will make him eligible to get married, reside separately. Our concern also was about her future and future of the child, she would have. Respondent- No.6-Devendra alias Kallu Arunsingh Bhadoriya is represented by Mr.Kuldeep Vaidya through Legal Aid. He also has produced an agreement entered into by and between the parties and notarised in presence of the Notary executed today on 7/3/2022, where both of them have expressed their keen desire to be with one another. It is specific understanding of the law. She also has stated that as to how she is having a fetus in her womb and he has taken the responsibility of maintaining both of them with the best possible efforts and has further ensured to marry her, once he enters the age of 21 years. He is short by two months. He is made to understand in Hindi language which is his mother language and this Court has verified from him the details. Considering the fact that the Corpus is not desirous to join her family and is insisting for joining No.6-Devendra alias Kallu Arunsingh Bhadoriya, she already being major, there could be no better to her and with the fetus in her womb, she has also explained her wish and will and the reason as to why she is wanting to now join respondent No.6. She needs to be given the permission as the law does not permit any kind of restrictions.

(2.) Her parents are unhappy, upset and unpredictable and through their learned advocate requested fervently not to allow her to join respondent No.6. There is no reason for the Court to deny or to agree to their request, more particularly, considering her majority and her present status and he having agreed to convert this relationship into marital relationship in a near future.

(3.) In case of Lata Singh v. State Of U.P. and Another reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475 while dealing with writ petition under Article 32 of Constitution, the Court protected the young couple who was constantly under a threat where it observed that inter-caste marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law is not prohibited. The Court was also surprised that the police has proceeded against petitioner's husband's family, instead of against petitioner's brothers for their unlawful and high-handed acts.