Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/2096/2024 of SMT. NEELAM SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 5 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIORBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAKON THE 5[th] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 2096 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1.SMT. NEELAM SHARMA W/O SHRI VISHNUSHARMA D/O SHRI RAJVEER SHARMA, AGEDABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFESHIV NAGAR COLONY JOURI A.B. ROAD,DISTRICT MORENA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.VISHNU SHARMA S/O SHRI SEETARAM SHARMA,AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PVT.WORK SHIV NAGAR COLONY JOURI A.B. ROADMORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI SANJAY SINGH - ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONERS
AND1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHPRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWANBHOPAL MP (MADHYA PRADESH)1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHPRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWANBHOPAL MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE POLICEHEADQUARTERS MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)3.STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICEHEAD QUARTER S CIVIL LINES MORENA(MADHYA PRADESH)
4.RAJVEER SHARMA S/O SHRI CHINGARAMSHARMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, VILL. RAHLAIPOST RAHLAI, AGRA (UTTAR PRADESH)
(BY SHRI N.S.TOMAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
1. Petitioners are present in person.
2 . In this petition, the petitioners inter alia seeking direction to therespondents to provide protection to them.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners, whoare major, have married each other on their own volition. For establishing theage of petitioners No.1 and No.2, adhar-cards and mark-sheets have beenproduced. However, members of family of petitioner No.1 are harassing andvictimizing the petitioners. It is further submitted that the instant petition may bedisposed of with the direction to the Superintendent of Police, Morena toprovide protection to the petitioners. Petitioners further undertake to livepeacefully with each other. In support of his submission, learned counsel forthe petitioners has placed reliance on the decision in Lata Singh v. State ofU.P. and another, (2006) 5 SCC 475 and in the case of Shakti Vahini Vs.Union of India and Others, 2018 (7) SCC 192.
4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the respondentsNo.1 to 3/State fairly submitted that in case petitioners approach the policeauthorities, suitable action in the matter shall be taken.
5. Taking into account the submissions made by learned counsel for theparties and as agreed to by them, this writ petition is disposed of with thedirection to the Superintendent of Police, Morena to look into the matter andtake appropriate steps expeditiously for providing protection to the petitionersonly, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lata Singh andShakti Vahini (supra). This protection is only to the petitioners regardingmarriage and would be given subject to verification of age of both thepetitioners as well as factum of marriage. Petitioners shall live peacefully without causing any embarrassment/harassment to each other.
6. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to validity of the marriage of the petitioners.
8. Certified copy as per rules.
Ashish*
(ANAND PATHAK)JUDGE