Case BriefsHigh Courts

Andhra Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of Tarlada Rajashekhar Rao and K Manmadha Rao, JJ. disposed of the petition and directed the respondents to set free of detenu’s liberty and the petitioner to take her back to lead happy marital life.

The brief facts of the case are that an inter-religious marriage was performed between the petitioner and detenu, namely, Mrs. Shaik Rijvana as per the rites and customs of Christian religion against the will and wishes of the parents and other relatives of the detenu. Due to solemnization of their marriage, the parents and relatives of detenu bore grudge against them and started harassing with active assistance of Police authorities. One day, on the pretext of causal check, the police authorities visited the house of the petitioner, manhandled his family members, including the detenu and forcibly abducted the petitioner’s wife. Subsequently, the petitioner requested the official respondents to refrain from forcibly abducting her but they bluntly refused to heed to it. On reliable information, the petitioner learnt that the detenu was confined in respondent 8, bungalow. Therefore, the efforts of the petitioner and his family members in securing the presence of the detenu ended futile. On the contrary, the action of police authorities in unlawfully detaining her is unsustainable and untenable. The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the official respondents to secure the presence of petitioner’s wife namely Mrs. Shaik Rijvana before the Court and set her at liberty.

The Court directed the respondent to produce the detenu before Court and on production of the same, the detenu was found to not be willing to stay with the parents and reported that there is no safety to her life and also further informed that she is major and she wants to live with Karthik/petitioner herein. On further production of the husband, it was fairly stated that he is ready to take his wife, who is the detenu, namely, Mrs. Shaik Rijvana and the detenu also stated that she is also willing to go and live with him.

The Court observed and held that on considering the submissions of the petitioner and the detenu, as they are majors and they have agreed to live together, this Court is of the considered view that there is no need for any interference of the parents in this writ petition. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to implead the petitioner/respondent NO.9 on record, and accordingly, the I.A No.1 of 2022 is dismissed.

[Chundura Karthik v. State of AP, 2022 SCC OnLine AP 1270, decided on 26-05-2022]


Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: Vivek Rusia, J. entertained a writ petition seeking police protection from relatives and members of society for the alleged harassment after the marriage of the petitioners. 

The petitioners contended that, they had entered into the wedlock voluntarily after acquiring majority (age) but the respondents have threatened them of their life and hence, they demand protection from the authorities. 

The learned counsel for the petitioner, R.K. Sharma, submitted that petitioners were harassed because the respondents and alleged members had objection with the valid marriage and the safety of petitioners were at stake due to such threats. It is to be noted that valid age of the petitioners are not in question. 

The counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court, In Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475, where it was observed that “this is free and democratic country and once a person becomes a major can marry whoever he or she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut-off social relation with the son or daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter-religious relationship marriage.” 

Highlighting the matter of ‘Khap Panchayat’ and ‘Honour Killing’ the counsel further submitted that such issues have already been discussed by Supreme Court vividly and were serious matter of concern. State was directed to take preventive and remedial punitive measures to discourage such practices. Emphasizing the judgment of Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 192, where the Supreme Court elaborated various measures and directed various agencies of the State in this regard. It was held that “To meet the challenges of the agonizing effect of honour crime, we think that there has to be preventive, remedial and punitive measures and accordingly, we state the broad contours and the modalities with liberty to the executive and the police administration of the concerned States to add further measures to evolve a robust mechanism for the stated purposes”.

The Court, based on the directives of the Supreme Court in Shakti Vahini, allowed the writ and directed the Superintendent of Police to provide security to the petitioners,  also to comply with the orders. [Mitali v. State of M.P., 2019 SCC OnLine MP 795, decided on 09-05-2019]