SHIVANI BALASARA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have in our Order dated 5th November, 2021 set out that the Petitioner No.1, aged 23 years and the Petitioner No.2, aged 22 years, are legally married and only because they belong to different castes, they have been meted out with gruesome treatment at the hands of not only the parents of Petitioner No.1, but also by the Sarpanch of Village - Chaubari, Taluka - Bachao, Gujarat (Respondent No.8), the Community Head (Respondent No.9) and the members of the Ahir Community of Village Chaubari, Taluka Bachao, Gujarat. Detailed facts with respect to the same are set out in the Petition. Infact admittedly, the Sarpanch and the Community Head had earlier come to Mumbai all the way from their Village, and had on a false pretext taken away the Petitioner No.1 to their Village, where on or about 01.01.2021, she was hauled up before a crowd of about 100 to 150 persons, mainly belonging to the Ahir Community to which the Petitioner No. 1 belongs. The Petitioner No. 1 was taunted, abused, humiliated by the members of the crowd consisting only of males, for having performed an inter-caste marriage with Petitioner No.2, who is a Brahmin. About 5 to 6 males from the said crowd physically assaulted the Petitioner No. 1. According to the Petitioner No.1, she recollects the names of two of the said males who assaulted her, i.e. Shri Teja Parbath Patel, the brother of the Respondent No. 9 and one Shri Kanani.

(2.) According to the Petitioner No.1, despite being admittedly married to Petitioner No.2, she was handed over to Respondent No.6 after performing a purported marriage ceremony. The Petitioner No.1 thereafter, suffered rape, grievous assault, including heinous grievous injury to her private parts deliberately inflicted by the Respondent No. 6, who even tried to injure her with burning cigarette butts and shamelessly proclaimed that he has purchased her, and that the Petitioner No.1 was his chattel, which Respondent No. 6 was free to use, in whichever way he desired. The Respondent No. 6 also claimed to have paid consideration in the form of cash and jewellery to Respondent Nos. 4, 8 and 9, i.e. the father of the Petitioner No.1, the Sarpanch of Chaubari Village and the Community Head of Chaubari Village, Taluka - Bachao, Kutch District, Gujarat, respectively.

(3.) Pursuant to our Order dated 5th November, 2021, Respondent Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 are present in Court. However, Respondent No.6 (with whom Petitioner No.1 was allegedly married) is not present. Instead, he has sent his brother (Respondent No.7) who has informed us that he is unwell and therefore he is unable to attend the Court. Respondent No.7 has refused to disclose to us the whereabouts of his brother, the Respondent No.6. However, the police officials who are present before us, inform us that they had seen Respondent No.6 in the company of his brother this morning. The father of the Petitioner No.1 and her brother are also present in Court. They too have made statements which are false and dishonest to their knowledge. They have denied the allegations made in the Petition, including the allegations that they handed over the Petitioner No.1 to Respondent No.6 by a purported marriage ceremony and insisted that she had a live-in relationship with Respondent No.6. When this Court informed the father as well as the brother of Petitioner No.1 that the Court has seen the photographs of the purported marriage ceremony of the Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent No.6 conducted in the Village (despite the Petitioner No.1 being the legal wife of Petitioner No.2), they had no other alternative but to admit that certain rituals were carried out before she could go to the house of Respondent No.6. As far as the Sarpanch and the Community Head are concerned, they too have made completely false and dishonest statements before the Court. They informed the Court that they have nothing to do with Respondent No.6; they have come to Mumbai on their own; and they do not know the whereabouts of Respondent No.6, who is not present in Court. The Advocate representing the Sarpanch (Respondent No.8) and the Community Head (Respondent No.9) and Respondent No.6 has informed the Court that they are representing all three of them, since a Chartered Accountant who is the neighbour of Respondent No.7 (the brother of Respondent No.6), is known to one of the lawyers and has requested the lawyer to appear for all the three Respondents, i.e. the Respondent No.6 (who allegedly got married to Petitioner No.1), the Respondent No.8 (Sarpanch) and the Respondent No.9 (Community Head). The submission of the Sarpanch and the Community Head before the Court that they are completely on their own and do not have any information qua Respondent No.6, is therefore false and incorrect. In fact, when this Court enquired from Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 where they are residing in Mumbai, they informed us that they are staying in a hotel room. On further enquiry qua the name of the hotel, they informed us that they do not know the name of the hotel, since they were taken to the said hotel at Andheri, by the rickshaw driver whose rickshaw they had engaged at the Mumbai Airport. Respondent No.7 (the brother of Respondent No.6), was not aware of this statement, since he was out of the Court Room at the time when it was made. When this Court enquired from him the name of the hotel where the Sarpanch and the Community Head were housed, he stated that whenever their friends/guests visited Mumbai, they would house them at Hotel Nishita Residency at Andheri (the name of which is now changed) and therefore, the Sarpanch and the Community Head are also housed by them at the same Hotel.