Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 616 (HP)

Neeraj v. State of H. P.

2019-05-23

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. By medium of this petition, the petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No. 7/2019, dated 24.02.2019, registered under Sections 363, 366, 376, 343 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short POSCO Act), at Women Police Station, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are major and, in fact, are married to each other. Petitioner No. 2 is happily residing in the house of petitioner No. 1 alongwith his parents. 3. On 20.05.2019, the mother of petitioner No. 1 was present in the Court and stated that they were happy with the marriage of petitioner No. 1 with petitioner No. 2 and had unconditionally accepted petitioner No. 2 as their daughter-in-law. 4. After talking to the mother of petitioner No. 1, this Court felt that the opinion of the girls parents should also be taken into consideration before passing of the order and accordingly her parents were directed to appear before this Court on the next date of hearing. 5. Today, even though the father of the girl is not present but her mother has appeared and categorically stated that even though earlier they were not in favour of the marriage of their daughter but now they have not only reconciled but are very happy with the marriage and have, in fact, planned to host a grand function on 7th & 8th July, 2019. Her only other desire is that her daughter should be allowed to continue to pursue her education. 6. Since, petitioner No. 2 is barely 18 years of age, her mother-in-law has categorically stated before this Court that she would not only be allowed but encouraged to pursue further study so that she becomes financially independent some day. 7. As observed above, both the parties are major and have soleminised their marriage and it is more than settled that a major girl is free to marry anyone or live with anyone she likes and in case she is now married and residing with petitioner, then no offence can be alleged to have been committed by petitioner. The parties have a right to live their lives the way it suits them and no person or authority much less the parents of the girl can interfere with their lives. 8. The parties have a right to live their lives the way it suits them and no person or authority much less the parents of the girl can interfere with their lives. 8. In United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, to which the India is also a signatory, Article 16 provides that: "(1) Men and Women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution; (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses; (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society". 9. Similarly, in International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 19.12.1966, Article 23 provides that: "1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State; 2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized; 3. No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses; 4. Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children". 10. It needs no reiteration that International Covenant, which have been ratified by India, are binding to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the domestic law. 11. In Sangita Rani (Smt.) alias Mehnaz Jahan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 715, the Honble Supreme Court has held that in a situation where both the spouses are major, there has been a valid marriage in accordance with law and both of them are living together, the marriage should be sustained and nothing should be allowed to happen which would affect that position. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had, in the facts of the said case, cautioned the parents to accept the situation and create no problem. 12. The Court proceedings cannot be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had, in the facts of the said case, cautioned the parents to accept the situation and create no problem. 12. The Court proceedings cannot be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. 13. In view of aforesaid discussion, I find merit in this petition as the petitioners cannot be said to have committed any offence under the Indian Penal Code or under the POSCO Act, consequently, FIR No.7/2019, dated 24.02.2019, registered under Sections 363, 366, 376, 343 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short POSCO Act), is quashed and set aside.