Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 208 (MP)

Shelo Shevar v. State of M. P.

2025-03-21

MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

body2025
ORDER 1. In this petition, the petitioners inter alia seek direction to the respondents No.1 to 3 to provide protection to them. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners informs this Court that petitioner No.1- Smt. Shelo Shewar is aged about 22 years and her date of birth is 8.10.2002 whereas petitioner No.2-Roni Jatav is aged about 20 years and his date of birth is 01-01-2005. Although petitioner No.2 as per section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not of marriageable age, as he has not completed 21 years of age and even as per the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, he may be a child but so far as The Majority Act, 1875 is concerned as per section 3 of the same, petitioner No.2 is major. He relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Hardev Singh v. Harpreet Kaur and Others, (2020) 19 SCC 504 and High Court of Delhi in the case of Court on its own Motion (Lajja Devi) & Ors. v. State & Ors., 2012 SCC Online Del 3937 as well as of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh High Court in the case of Gurdeep Kaur and Another v. State of Punjab and Others decided on 3.10.2023 in CRWP-9689-2023 (O&M) to support his submissions, thus, he submits that petitioners are entitled to get protection as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India also. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners who are major, have solemnized marriage and they are living together by their free consent without any pressure. However, the family members of the petitioner no.1 are harassing and victimizing the petitioners. It is further submitted that the instant petition may be disposed of with direction to the Superintendent of Police to provide protection to the petitioners. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and Another reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475 as well as in the case of Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and Others reported in (2018) 7 SCC 192 . 3. Shri Deepak Khot, learned Govt. 3. Shri Deepak Khot, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State while placing reliance in the matter of Ankita Argal and another v. State of M.P. and others, 2021 (4) M.P.L.J. 451 has argued that Coordinate Bench of this Court in similar circumstances has denied protection and had held that the arguments with regard to grant of protection is misconceived and contrary to the provisions of Indian Penal Code and as it would be a case where the girl under the bonafide belief that she is the legally wedded wife of the boy, may enter into physical relationship with him, which would trigger a situation which shall be squarely covered by the provisions of section 375 (II) of IPC which is punishable under section 376 of Indian Penal Code and under these circumstances it was held that if any FIR or offence is registered against the boy then the investigation cannot be stifled in the mid way specifically when the boy has given a bonafide belief to the girl that she is the legally wedded wife and as in the present case merely by sharing of garlands no one would become a legally wedded wife of a person, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Though it is true that the petitioner No.2 boy had not attained the age of 21 years as is required for consummating marriage and this Court cannot accede to the prayer for protecting the marriage, but it can extend protection simplicitor assuming the couple to be 'live-in-relationship' which has been recognized by Courts. 6. Taking into account the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Superintendent of Police, Morena to look into the matter and take appropriate steps for providing protection to the petitioners expeditiously, in view of the law laid down by the apex Court in Lata Singh and Shakti Vahini (supra). 7. The Superintendent of Police, Morena is directed to verify the factum of 'live-in-relationship' as well as factum of any threat from anybody only then if it deems fit. 8. 7. The Superintendent of Police, Morena is directed to verify the factum of 'live-in-relationship' as well as factum of any threat from anybody only then if it deems fit. 8. Since this Court has not recognized the very marriage of the petitioners, in future if any criminal case is registered at the instance of petitioner No.1 against petitioner No.2, then the same may be dealt with as provided under the law. 9. The petition stands disposed of.