NAZAMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners does not want to press the criminal writ petition qua petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. Hence, this criminal writ petition is dismissed as not pressed qua petitioner Nos. 3 and 4.

(2.) As far as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, the criminal writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to be provided with adequate security and protection. The petitioners, both being major persons, claim to have solemnized their marriage out of their own free will through a love marriage. They submit that the marriage was performed against the wishes of their parents, and thus, they feel a threat to their lives at the hands of respondents Nos. 4 to 21. The documents pertaining to the age of the petitioners and the marriage ceremony performed between them have been placed on record. The petitioners, who are major and having solemnized their marriage voluntarily, cannot be denied protection of their life and liberty, since it is a fundamental right of every citizen as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This position has been clearly affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600, Joseph Shine Vs. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39, and Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 2522.

(3.) Thus, taking cue from the proposition of law set forth by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments and in order to protect the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under the Constitution, the prayer made by the petitioners to provide protection to them deserves to be accepted.