Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 602 (MP)

Ankita Argal v. State of M. P.

2021-08-13

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. In compliance of order dated 11.8.2021, the petitioners are present in person. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief:- ^^¼1½ ;g fd] ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls fuosnu gS fd Áfr;kfpdkdrkZx.k Øekad 2 yxk;r 5 dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkos fd og ;kfpdkdrkZx.k dks ekufld o 'kkjhfjd :i ls ijs'kku u djus rFkk ;kfpdkdrkZx.k ds oSokfgd thou esa dksbZ gLr{ksi o ck/kk mRiUu u djsa ,oa ;kfpdkdrkZ Øekad&1 ds llqjkytu ds fo:) fdlh Hkh Ádkj dh dksbZ Hkh dkuwuh dk;Zokgh u dh tkosA ¼2½ ;g fd] çfr;kfpdkdrkZx.k Øekad&2 yxk;r 3 dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkos fd og ;kfpdkdrkZx.k d¢ tku eky dh j{kk dj lqj{kk Ánku dh tkos ,oa Áfr;kfpdkdrkZx.k Øekad&4 o 5 dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkos fd og ;kfpdkdrkZx.k ds thou esa O;o/kku mRiUu u djs ;kfpdkdrkZx.k ds Lo;a vFkok fdlh ds ek/;e ls fdlh Hkh Ádkj dh dksbZ {kfr u igqpk;saA^^ 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have performed marriage and they are living as husband and wife, but the parents of the petitioner No. 1 are interfering in the married life and, accordingly, they have also sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Morena by registered dated 23.6.2021 but the police is not providing protection to them. 4. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Since the petitioners are present in pursuance of order dated 11.8.2021 and the petitioners have annexed the photographs of exchange of garlands and filling up of Mang of the petitioner No. 1 with vermilion, therefore, the petitioner No. 2 was asked the manner in which he has performed the marriage. In the Court, it was specifically stated by the petitioner No. 2 that the marriage has been performed by exchange of garlands and filling up of Mang with vermilion. When the counsel for the petitioners was asked to justify as to whether the marriage under the Hindu law can be performed by exchange of garlands or filling up of Mang, then he submitted that there are three ways of performing marriage under the Hindu law, (i) exchange of garlands (ii) filling up of Mang with vermilion and (iii) Fera. When the counsel for the petitioners was asked to justify as to whether the marriage under the Hindu law can be performed by exchange of garlands or filling up of Mang, then he submitted that there are three ways of performing marriage under the Hindu law, (i) exchange of garlands (ii) filling up of Mang with vermilion and (iii) Fera. When the counsel for the petitioners was requested to use the legal word for Fera, then it was submitted that he does not know the exact legal word of Fera. 7. Be that whatever it may. 8. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 was asked that in what capacity she is treating herself with petitioner No. 2, then she submitted that the petitioner No. 2 is her husband. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner No. 2 has given a bonafide impression in the mind of petitioner No. 1 that by exchange of garlands now she is legally wedded wife of the 9. When the counsel for the petitioners was directed to point out from the Hindu law that exchange of garlands or filling up of Mang without following the rituals of Saptpadi would be a valid marriage, then he accepted that mere exchange of garlands or filling up of Mang is/are not a known ritual for a valid marriage. 10. Under these circumstances, where the petitioner No. 1 is under a bonafide impression that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner No. 2, but in fact, the marriage has not been performed in accordance with any known rituals or under any statute, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to make out a case that they are legally wedded husband and wife. 11. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that even if their marriage might not have been performed in accordance with the Hindu law, but since both of them are major and they are residing together, therefore, nobody has a right to interfere in their life. 12. The submission made by the counsel for the petitioners appears to be very attractive, but on deeper scrutiny, it cannot be accepted as it is misconceived and contrary to the provisions of Indian Penal Code. As already pointed out, the petitioner No. 1 is under bonafide belief that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner No. 2. 12. The submission made by the counsel for the petitioners appears to be very attractive, but on deeper scrutiny, it cannot be accepted as it is misconceived and contrary to the provisions of Indian Penal Code. As already pointed out, the petitioner No. 1 is under bonafide belief that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner No. 2. section 375 (fourthly) of IPC reads as under:- “With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.” 13. Thus, if the petitioner No. 1 had agreed for any physical relationship with petitioner No. 2, then her consent has been obtained by giving a bonafide impression that she is the legally wedded wife of petitioner No. 2 and, therefore, the situation in hand would be squarely covered by section 375 (fourthly) of IPC which is punishable under section 376 of IPC. 14. Under these circumstances, this Court cannot issue any protection order in favour of the petitioners. If any FIR or offence was registered against the petitioner No. 2, then that investigation cannot be stifled in the mid way specifically when the petitioner No. 2 has given a bonafide belief to the petitioner No. 1 that she is the legally wedded wife but the facts of the case are that merely by sharing of garlands, no one would become a legally wedded wife of a person. 15. Under these circumstances, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.