Petitioners seeking protection from honour killing due to live-in relationship. Court disposed petition directing SHO to ensure safety, clarifying age need not be verified in this order.
Direction to SHO to ensure no harm caused to petitioners at hands of those opposed to their live-in relationship.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2038/2019
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Imran Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Chawla, Public Prosecutor Mr. Hem Singh Rathore,
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Judgment / Order
12/04/2019
(2 of 3)
[CRLMP-2038/2019]
The present petition has been jointly filed by the petitioners, who allege to be of marriageable age and have been living together on willingly.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are in a live in relationship and their relationship has become the cause of their parent’s annoyance. Thus, they have a reasonable apprehension that they might become victim of honour killing. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of UP reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475 and the fact that the concept of live-in-relationship has now received statutory recognition by the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed that necessary direction be issued to the respondents No.2 to 7 to protect the petitioners as they apprehend danger to their life and liberty at the hands of those who are against the relationship between the petitioners.
Both the petitioners are present in person. They have been identified by their counsel Mr. Imran Khan, Advocate.
It is stated by the petitioners who are present in person, that they are adult and they are living together out of there own free-will and accord.
Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the present petition, this Court is of the view that nobody can be permitted to take law in his own hands merely because the petitioners are in a live in relationship.
(3 of 3)
[CRLMP-2038/2019]
In the result, the present petition stands disposed of, by issuing direction to the concerned Station House Officer to ensure necessary observance that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of those, who are opposed to their live in relationship.
It is made clear that this order has been passed without determining the age of the petitioners. Thus, the respondents are free to verifying the age of the petitioner in accordance with law and in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra).
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J
Mohit Rohila /11
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a direction can be issued to police to protect petitioners apprehending honour killing due to their live-in relationship.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lata Singh Vs. State of UPReferred¶24
Lata Singh Vs. State of UP reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475 · Who else cites this
Manisha Kumari
Ashish Sheron
State Of Rajasthan
Ratiram
Charan Singh
Prakash Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
