BINDU MOHANTA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus prohibiting opposite parties from interfering with the peaceful life of the petitioners so also from arresting the petitioner No. 2 on the allegation of kidnapping of the petitioner No. 1. Further prayer of the petitioners is for issuance of a direction to take necessary action on the written report of the petitioner No. 1 under Annexure-2. Case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 is the wife of petitioner No. 2. Both the petitioners in order to materialize their love affairs fled away from their houses and got married. After marriage, they are living as husband and wife. The opposite parties, more particularly opposite party No. 3-Inspector-in-charge, Tiring Police Station is harassing the petitioners thereby taking all possible steps to arrest petitioner No. 2 in connection with allegation of kidnapping the petitioner No. 1. Hence, the present writ petition.

(2.) Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were in love with each other since years together, but the family members of both the petitioners were objecting towards such relationship. The family members had taken various steps to separate them from each other for which the petitioners decided to flee away from their houses in order to materialize their love affairs thereby marrying each other. Accordingly, the petitioners fled away from their houses and on 15th January, 2013 got married at Dubapal Mahadev Temple, Dubapal in the district of Mayurbhanj. After getting married, both are living as husband and wife thereby maintaining their happy conjugal life. After marriage, they have sworn affidavits declaring that they have married to each other. Further, they have also executed deed of marriage agreement to that effect on 18.01.2013. After marriage, the family members of petitioner No. 2 with much hesitation have accepted them, but opposite party No. 4-Chandra Mohan Mohanta with his personal ego is taking all possible steps to take away petitioner No. 1 and to give her marriage somewhere else against her will. When petitioner No. 1 came to know that her father is taking such steps, she approached opposite party No. 3 thereby lodging information to that effect, but no action has yet been taken to protect petitioner No. 1 from vindictive action of her father, opposite party No. 4. The petitioners from the reliable sources ascertained that opposite party No. 4 has lodged FIR before opposite party No. 3 with allegation that petitioner No. 2 has kidnapped her daughter-petitioner No. 1. As such, opposite party No. 3 having hand in gloves with opposite party No. 4 is taking all possible steps to arrest petitioner No. 2 on the allegation of kidnapping petitioner No. 1. As a result, opposite party No. 3 has been gained over by opposite party No. 4 to such an extent that even he has hot yet registered the written report of the opposite party No. 4 as FIR nor sent the same to the Court of the Magistrate as required under law. Rather he is intending to arrest the petitioner No. 2 first and thereafter will forward him to the Court by registering the written report of opposite party No. 4. The petitioners are major and have attained the age of discretion. They are competent enough under the law to choose their life partner and therefore, they have married each other as per Hindu Customs thereby maintaining their happy married life without any disturbance from any corner, but due to the high handed action of the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 their happy married life is being disturbed.

(3.) In support of his contention, Mr. Mohapatra places reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi and another v. K.S. Jagannathan and another, 1987 AIR(SC) 537 and submits that the High Courts while exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing such discretion which has been conferred.