SHELO SHEVAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioners inter alia seek direction to the respondents No.1 to 3 to provide protection to them.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners informs this Court that petitioner No.1- Smt. Shelo Shewar is aged about 22 years and her date of birth is 08- 10-2002 whereas petitioner No.2-Roni Jatav is aged about 20 years and his date of birth is 1/1/2005. Although petitioner No.2 as per Sec. 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not of marriageable age, as he has not completed 21 years of age and even as per the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, he may be a child but so far as The Majority Act, 1875 is concerned as per Sec. 3 of the same, petitioner No.2 is major. He relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Hardev Singh Vs. Harpreet Kaur and Others, (2020) 19 SCC 504 and High Court of Delhi in the case of Court on its own Motion (Lajja Devi) & Ors. Vs. State & Ors., 2012 SCC Online Del 3937 as well as of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh High Court in the case of Gurdeep Kaur and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Others decided on 3/10/2023 in CRWP-9689-2023 (O&M) to support his submissions, thus, he submits that petitioners are entitled to get protection as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India also.

(3.) Shri Deepak Khot, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State while placing reliance in the matter of Ankita Argal and another Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2021 (4) M.P.L.J. 451 has argued that Coordinate Bench of this Court in similar circumstances has denied protection and had held that the arguments with regard to grant of protection is misconceived and contrary to the provisions of Indian Penal Code and as it would be a case where the girl under the bonafide belief that she is the legally wedded wife of the boy, may enter into physical relationship with him, which would trigger a situation which shall be squarely covered by the provisions of Sec. 375 (II) of IPC which is punishable under Sec. 376 of Indian Penal Code and under these circumstances it was held that if any FIR or offence is registered against the boy then the investigation cannot be stifled in the mid way specifically when the boy has given a bonafide belief to the girl that she is the legally wedded wife and as in the present case merely by sharing of garlands no one would become a legally wedded wife of a person, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.