Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1202 (RAJ)

Komal Rajpurohit v. State of Rajasthan

2015-06-30

ARUN BHANSALI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking protection against harassment by the parents and family members of petitioner No.1. 2. The petition has been filed with the allegations that the petitioners are major and have solemnized their marriage on 13.06.2015 at Bikaner with Arya Samaj Rites. It is alleged that on account of inter-caste marriage between the petitioners, though the parents of petitioner No.2 have accepted the marriage, the parents of petitioner No.1 have not accepted the same and were seeking to harass and humiliate the petitioners by way of threatening them with dire consequences. 3. It is claimed that the petitioners are moving from one place to another since their marriage on account of being threatened by the parents. It is also alleged by the petitioners orally that husband of petitioner No.2's sister has been illegally detained by the Bikaner Police to pressurize the family of petitioner No.2 to disclose the whereabouts of the petitioners and in case the petitioners are not provided protection by this Court, their life and liberty is severely threatened. 4. The petitioners are present in person and have reiterated the submissions as noticed hereinbefore. 5. In view of the submissions made, the learned Dy. Government Advocate Mr. M.S. Panwar has been requested to accept the notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3. 6. The law on the subject pertaining to similar circumstances has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2006 (5) SCC 475 , wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that those entering into inter-caste marriage and are being threatened by the parents, it is the duty of the Administration/Police Authorities to provide protection to them. 7. In the present case, the allegations made relates to petitioners being harassed by the respondents instead of providing protection to them. The petitioner has also placed on record a representation made by the petitioner No.1 and sent by speed-post, which has been duly delivered on 25.06.2015 and, therefore, it is expected of the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner to do the needful in providing protection to the petitioners. 8. The petitioner has also placed on record a representation made by the petitioner No.1 and sent by speed-post, which has been duly delivered on 25.06.2015 and, therefore, it is expected of the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner to do the needful in providing protection to the petitioners. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with a direction to the respondents No.1 to 3 to ensure that the petitioners are not harassed or humiliated either at the hands of respondents No.4 and 5 i.e. parents of petitioner No.1 or her relatives. It is further directed that the Police Authorities would not unduly interrogate and/or seek to investigate the parents and relatives of the petitioner No.2 on account of any complaint/FIR having being lodged by parents of petitioner No.1. 9. The learned Dy. Government Advocate is directed to indicate the directions issued by this Court and also ensure that the petitioners are provided adequate security on their way from Jodhpur to Bikaner. Petition Disposed of.