SEEMA CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioner is that she is aged about 21 years possesses maturity and is free to decide her fate including the issue of her marriage. It is stated that the petitioner was engaged with one Ramji Lal about 3 years ago, in accordance with the customs of the community in the presence of reputed persons of caste. It has been submitted that the father of the petitioner Hanuman Chaudhary, guided by his greed took a decision to break the engagement of the petitioner with Ramji Lal. Instead he planned to engage/ marry the petitioner with a person resident of Girdharipura, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk for a consideration of Rs.2 lacs. According to the petitioner when she came to know of her father's ill intentions she contacted Ramji Lal, who intervened on her behalf. The petitioner's father is alleged to have then threatened Ramji Lal with serious consequences if he were to intervene in the engagement/ marriage of the petitioner as per his wish. It is submitted that in these circumstances the petitioner and Ramji Lal went to Police Station Duttwas, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk to lodge a report and seek police protection. But due to the intervention of the petitioner's father they instead found themselves being targeted by the police. However finding an opportunity, the petitioner and Ramji Lal ran away from the Police Station Duttwas. Subsequently, according to the petitioner she along with Ramji Lal approached the Superintendent of Police, Tonk detailing the facts herein above stated seeking police protection of life and liberty and praying for action against the petitioner's father Hanuman Choudhary. An application dated 29-4-2013 is also stated to have been sent by registered post to the In-charge of the Police Station Duttwas, but to no avail and yet no requisite action has been taken against the petitioner's father nor the necessary police protection provided to safeguard the well being of the petitioner and of Ramji Lal.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes concomitant right of being free to find life partner of her choice. It has been submitted that apart from being denied the right to marry a person of her choice, she is also being threatened by her father, with serious consequences including death for both her and of Ramji Lal in the event of the petitioner marrying Ramji Lal. It has been submitted that the petitioner is presently living with Ramji Lal and desires to marry him formally but is being prevented owing to the illegal acts of petitioner's father Hanuman Chaudhary and quietude of the police to discharge its responsibility of protecting the life and liberty of citizens. It has been submitted that the entreatments to the police even by way of registered letters has been of no avail. Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the judgment in case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. [(2006) 5 SCC 475], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a major girl is free to marry anyone she likes or live with anyone she likes. There is no bar to an intercaste marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law. Hence it cannot be seen what offence was committed by the girl, her husband or her husband's relatives in such situations. It has been held that the police should ensure when approached by the aggrieved couple that neither the girl nor her husband or his relatives are harassed or threatened nor any acts of violence are committed against them, and if anybody is found doing so in breach of law, he should be proceeded against sternly in accordance with law by the authorities concerned.

(3.) HOWEVER if any case has already been registered against Ramji Lal at the instance of petitioner's father, investigation in such proceedings be carried out in a fair and transparent manner after recording of the statement of the petitioner under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.