Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/2079/2024 of SMT. SIMINLATA@SHAKUNTALA 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. 2079 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1.SMT. SIMINLATA@SHAKUNTALA W/O SHRIRAHUL D/O SHRI RAMSEVAK, AGED ABOUT 18YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE GRAM AINTIRITHAURA KALAN P.S. RITHAURAKALANDISTRICT MORENA M.P. HAL NIWASI GRAMKUNGREL KA PURA, DHANELA MORENA(MADHYA PRADESH)RAHUL D/O SHRI RAMSEVAK, AGED ABOUT 18YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE GRAM AINTIRITHAURA KALAN P.S. RITHAURAKALANDISTRICT MORENA M.P. HAL NIWASI GRAMKUNGREL KA PURA, DHANELA MORENA(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.RAHUL S/O SHRI RAMSEVAK PRAJAPATI, AGEDABOUT 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PVT. NOKRIGRAM KUNGREL KA PURA DHANELA MORENA(MADHYA PRADESH)ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PVT. NOKRIGRAM KUNGREL KA PURA DHANELA MORENA(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI R.S.RAJPOOT - ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONERS
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHSUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DISTRICTMORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DISTRICTMORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.P R A B H A R I POLICE HEADQUARTERS P.SRITHORA, MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)RITHORA, MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.RAMSEVAK PRAJAPATI S/O LATE SHRIMATRILAL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,OCCUPATION: KARSHI GRAM ENTI RITHORAKLA (MADHYA PRADESH)MATRILAL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,OCCUPATION: KARSHI GRAM ENTI RITHORAKLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.UMMED PRAJAPATI S/O SHRI RAMSEVAKPRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,OCCUPATION: MAZDOORI GRAM ETIRITHORAKLA (MADHYA PRADESH)PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,OCCUPATION: MAZDOORI GRAM ETIRITHORAKLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5.ABHILAKH S/O SHRI RAMSEVAK PRAJAPATI,AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:MAZDOORI GRAM ENTI RITHORA KLA (MADHYAAGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:MAZDOORI GRAM ENTI RITHORA KLA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6.DATARAM PRAJAPATI S/O NAMALUM, AGEDABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: KARSHI GRAMENTI RITHORA KLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI N.S.TOMAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
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, who are 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 the parties 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 withoutcausing 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