Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/20814/2020 of SMT. RAVEENA BAI Vs STATE OF MP on 31 December 2020
Court of Madhya Pradesh WP.20814/2020 (Smt. Raveena Bai & another Vs. The
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
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.
The High Court of Madhya PradeshWP.20814/2020
(Smt. Raveena Bai & another Vs. The State of M.P.)
Gwalior dated : 31/12/2020
Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Vijay Sunderam, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Heard through video conferencing.
In this petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution petitioners seekprotection of their life, liberty and dignity arising out of the factualscenario that the petitioner No.1- Smt. Raveena Bai being major aged34 years based upon her Aadhar Card, vide P/1 is in live-inrelationship with petitioner No.2 aged about 29 years based upon hisAadhar card vide P/2 on their own volition.
It is urged that petitioners' live-in relationship has invoked ire ofrelatives of petitioner No.1 who may take extreme step of honourkilling in retaliation of the societal indignation faced by them.
Reliance is placed on the decision of Apex Court in the case ofLata Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475 and thefact that the concept of live-in relationship has now received statutoryrecognition by the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005.
(Bu)
DHANADigitally signed by DHANANJAY BUCHAKE DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH NJAY GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=6489e9ca230b3031a4BUCHAb44a621934281f589875c02fb2a20e4220aebc8a3ba7ec, cn=DHANANJAY BUCHAKE Date: 2021.01.02 15:03:04 KE+05'30'
This petition is, thus, disposed of with a direction that ifprotection is sought by the petitioners against any harassment orintimidation against their life, liberty and dignity arising out of theirlive-in relationship, the same is directed to be granted to them by therespondents on verifying the genuineness of the apprehensionexpressed after verifying their marriageable age in accordance withlaw and in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in Lata Singh (supra).
No cost.
(Sheel Nagu) Vacation Judge