Dismissed

Jayshree Bijarniya and Anr. v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC30 May 2018CW/7649/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ petition seeking police protection after marrying without parental consent, fearing harassment from relatives. The Court found the petition bereft of factual basis and material evidence regarding threat to life or liberty. The Court declined to grant protection as a matter of course.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking police protection was rejected.

Jayshree Bijarniya and Anr. Vs State and Ors. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR.

¶3

¶4

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7649 / 2018.

¶5

Jayshree Bijarniya W/o Raju Tard D/o Poonam Bijarniya, Aged About 18 Years, By Caste Jat R/o Near Bheru Ji Temple, Chopda Badi, Bikaner At Present Residing At Indra Chowk, Street No. 02, Bikaner, Ganga Shahar, Rajasthan.

¶6

Raju Tard S/o Ram Pratap, Aged About 23 Years, By Caste Jat R/o Indra Chowk, Street No. 02, Bikaner, Ganga Shahar,

¶7

Rajasthan. ----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶10

Director General of Police, Govt. of Rajasthan Police Head Quarter, Jaipur.

¶11

The Superintendent of Police, Bikaner

¶12

The S.H.O. Police Station, Ganga Sahar District Bikaner.

¶13

Poonamchand Bijarniya S/o Heera Lal Bijarniya, R/o Near Bheru Ji Temple, Chopda Badi, Bikaner

¶14

Rajesh S/o Poonamchand Bijarniya, R/o Near Bheru Ji Temple, Chopda Badi, Bikaner

¶15

Gopal S/o Poonamchand Bijarniya, R/o Near Bheru Ji Temple, Chopda Badi, Bikaner

¶16

Ramchander S/o Heera Lal, R/o Near Bheru Ji Temple, Chopda Badi, Bikaner

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

[CW-7649/2018]

¶19

Mohan S/o Heera Lal, R/o Near Bheru Ji Temple, Chopda Badi, Bikaner

¶20

Ratan S/o Heera Lal, R/o Near Bheru Ji Temple, Chopda Badi,

¶21

Bikaner ----Respondents

¶22

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Jayshree Bijarniya, Petitioner No.1, present-in-person. Mr. Raju Tard, Petitioner No.2, presentin-person. _____________________________________________________ JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order

¶23

30/05/2018

¶24

The petitioners have filed the present writ petition, inter alia, seeking police protection. The petitioners, present-in-person, submit that as they have contracted the marriage, without consent of their parents, they apprehend that the relatives of the Petitioner No.1 – Jayshree Bijarniya would misbehave with them and man-handle.

¶25

Both the petitioners presented themselves on 29.05.2018 at 8:00 a.m. in the Court and sought permission to get their case listed.

¶26

Wary of real threat to their lives, the Court ordered the Registry to list their case, the next day. This is how, the matter comes up for consideration.

¶27

Upon perusal of the memo of the writ petition, this Court does not find any assertion or averment regarding any misbehaviour by the private respondents. According to the

¶28

(3 of 4)

¶29

[CW-7649/2018]

¶30

petitioners’ own saying, they have contracted marriage on 27.05.2018 and contacted Superintendent of Police, Bikaner for providing security. A copy of the representation dated 27.05.2018 has been placed on record, which does not bear any receipt etc., rendering the very filing of the representation doubtful. The petitioners have not considered it appropriate to apprise the Court about fate or the outcome of such representation. Instead they have rushed to this Court, surprisingly on 29.05.2018, immediately after marrying on 27.05.2018.

¶31

In considered opinion of this Court, the writ jurisdiction of this Court and the Judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. ( AIR 2006 SC 2522) are not meant for providing protection to such youths, who have simply fled to marry according to their own wishes.

¶32

There is no material or reason for this Court to conclude that the petitioners’ life and liberty is at peril. There is not even iota of evidence to evince that private respondents, (relatives of the Petitioner No.1) are likely to cause physical or mental assault upon the petitioners.

¶33

If the petitioners have tied the nuptial knots, they must muster the audacity to face and possess tenacity to persuade the society for the step they have taken.

¶34

In a deserving case, the Court can provide security to the couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought. They have to learn to support each other and face the society, including private respondents.

¶35

(4 of 4)

¶36

[CW-7649/2018]

¶37

If the private respondents, misbehave or manhandle them, the Courts and Police authorities are there to come to their rescue, but they cannot claim security as a matter of course or right.

¶38

The present petition is nothing, but an attempt to satisfy their false ego or fancy.

¶39

Not only, the petition is bereft of factual foundation, it is devoid of merit also. The same is, therefore, rejected.

¶40

A copy of this Order be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner, forthwith for information.

¶41

(DINESH MEHTA), J.

¶42

/Mohan/S-155

Jayshree Bijarniya and Anr. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayshree Bijarniya and Anr. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Kumar and Anr. Vs Subhash Chandra and Ors.

Laxmi Narain Vs Shri Srikrishan

Lrs of Amba Lal Vs Girdhari Lal and Ors.

Tararam Vs Prakashchand and Ors.

Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Jai Ambey Seva San.andJOB Placement Agency Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.