POOJABEN SURESHBHAI JINJAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents. Considering the facts and circumstances in which the matter arises, it is being heard and decided finally, at this stage, with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties.

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

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that they were known to each other for a long time and this acquaintance developed into friendship, followed by love and affection. The petitioners decided to get married and, accordingly, their marriage was solemnised on 11.12.2014 at Tartiya Hanuman Temple, Dariya Mahal, Muglisara, Surat. The parents of petitioner No.1 were forcing her to marry another person, therefore, she left her parental home, met petitioner No.2 and narrated everything to him. Petitioner No.2 assured petitioner No.1 that he would make necessary efforts to help her and, finally, both the petitioners got married and started living together as husband and wife. On 31.12.2014, petitioner No.1 had sworn an affidavit­cum­ declaration before the Notary Public with regard to the solemnisation of their marriage, which is annexed as Annexure­B to the petition. The petitioners are living together as husband and wife. Petitioner No.1 is 20 years old and petitioner No.2 is 21 years old and, therefore, having attained the age of majority, they desire to live their lives independently without pressure from their parents and relatives. It is further stated that petitioner No.2 is earning his livelihood by doing labour work but is capable enough to undertake the responsibility of maintaining himself and his wife. Petitioner No.1 is pregnant. The petitioners apprehend that the parents of petitioner No.1 would create obstacles in their lives as they have not reconciled themselves to her marriage with petitioner No.2. Accordingly, the petitioners made an application dated 10.06.2015 to respondent No.2, Commissioner of Police, Surat, for police protection. As, according to the petitioners, no steps have been taken by the concerned respondents on the said application, they have approached this Court by way of the present petition.