Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1023 (RAJ)

Sheela Nawariya v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP

2019-04-04

PRAKASH GUPTA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. The present petition has been jointly filed by the petitioners, who allege to be of marriageable age and have been living together on willingly. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are in a live in relationship and their relationship has become the cause of their parents annoyance. Thus, they has a reasonable apprehension that they might become victim of honour killing. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lata Singh v. State of UP reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475 and the fact that the concept of live-in-relationship has now received statutory recognition by the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed that necessary direction be issued to the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 to protect the petitioners as they apprehend danger to their life and liberty at the hands of those who are against the relationship between the petitioners. 4. Both the petitioners are present in person. They have been identified by their counsel Ms. Isha Pincha, Advocate. 5. It is stated by the petitioners who are present in person, that they are adult and they are living together out of there own free-will and accord. 6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the present petition, this Court is of the view that nobody can be permitted to take law in his own hands merely because the petitioners are in a live in relationship. 7. In the result, the present petition stands disposed of, by issuing direction to the concerned Station House Officer to ensure necessary observance that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of those, who are opposed to their live in relationship. 8. It is made clear that this order has been passed without determining the age of the petitioners. Thus, the respondents are free to verifying the age of the petitioners in accordance with law and in terms of the judgment of the Honble Apex Court (supra).