Dismissed

Soniya Daughter of Shri Dholaram, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Mar 2024CRLW/139/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLW petition seeking security and protection for two adults living together against private respondents due to threats. Court declined to adjudicate legality of relationship but ordered Nodal Officer to ventilate grievances and protect life and liberty under Article 21, subject to verification.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to petitioners to approach Nodal Officer for grievance ventilation and protection of life and liberty against illegal hindrance by private respondents after verification.

Soniya Daughter of Shri Dholaram, Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:12188]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 139/2024

¶4

Soniya Daughter Of Shri Dholaram, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of Uklana Mandi, District Hisar, Haryana, At Present Resident Of Village Lalsar, Dhani Ladya, Tehsil Nadoti, District Gangapurcity (Raj.)

¶5

Surendra Singh Gurjar Son Of Shri Kajod Mal Gurjar, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Village Lalsar, Dhani Ladya, Tehsil Nadoti, District Gangapurcity (Raj.)

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶9

The Director General Of Police, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶10

Superintendent Of Police, Gangapurcity, District Gangapurcity (Raj.)

¶11

The Station House Officer, Police Station Gadhmora, District Gangapurcity (Raj.)

¶12

Vilendra Son Of Raja, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Uklana Mandi, District Hisar (Haryana)

¶13

Angreja Wife Of Raja, Resident Of Uklana Mandi, District Hisar (Haryana)

¶14

Ramu Son Of Raja, Resident Of Uklana Mandi, District Hisar (Haryana)

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Ratan Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.L. Nasuna, PP

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶18

Order

¶19

11/03/2024

¶20

Petitioners have preferred instant petition for issuance of necessary directions to official-respondents to provide adequate security and protection to them on the ground that they are facing

[2024:RJ-JP:12188]

[CRLW-139/2024]

(2 of 3)

grave threat of their life and liberty at the hands of private respondents.

¶25

Counsel for petitioners submits that both petitioners are stated to be major and living together by their free will and volition, though petitioner No.1 is stated to be married with nonpetitioner No.5. In that backdrop petitioners seek protection of their life and liberty and in order to live happily and peacefully they are seeking protection qua private respondents, who are not happy with the relationship of petitioners.

¶26

Pursuant the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Navtej Singh Johar V. Union of India [(2018)10 SCC 1 ] and of this court in Bajrang Lal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, SB Cr. Miscellaneous Petition No.2/2019 decided on 4-1-2019 , the State Government through Director General of Police issued a Circular dated 18-1-2019 and appointed Nodel Officer at every Police Station in the state of Rajasthan for ventilation of grievances of newly married couple, including for adequate protection. Life and liberty is fundamental right of every citizen being part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, petitioners deserve protection of their life and liberty in accordance with law.

¶27

Similar to the married couple, petitioners, who are major and willingly living in relationship, without entering into marriage, also cannot be denied protection of their life and liberty since it is fundamental right of every citizen being part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as has been observed by this Apex Court in case of S.Khushboo v. Kanniammal [(2010)5 SCC 600 ] and

[2024:RJ-JP:12188]

[CRLW-139/2024]

(3 of 3)

Joseph Shine v. Union of India [(2019)3 SCC 39 ]. Thus, petitioners deserve protection of their life and liberty in accordance with law.

¶32

In view of above, however, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is not inclined to enter into examining the validity of marriage/ legality of relationship of parties, therefore does not render any affirmation of legality and validity of the status of parties under which they are living together, but keeping in mind the proposition of law set forth by the Apex Court in catena of judgments and in order to protect fundamental rights of parties for their life and liberty, guaranteed under the Constitution, this petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioners to approach the concerned Nodal Officer for ventilation of their grievances.

¶33

In case petitioners move any application, it is expected from the concerned Nodal Officer to take necessary action for not allowing to illegally hinder in peaceful life and liberty of petitioners by private respondents, who are not agreeable to the relationship of petitioners, but after verifying the fact, if required.

¶34

However, it is made clear that this order will not affect the civil/ criminal proceedings, if any, in the present matter.

¶35

Stay application and other pending application(s), if any stand disposed of.

¶36

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶37

SOURAV /480

Soniya Daughter of Shri Dholaram, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soniya Daughter of Shri Dholaram, v. State of Rajasthan

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

Pawan Tusiya @ Paramanand S/O Laalchand Vs State of Rajasthan

Kajodi Devi Wife of Narendra Alias Pappu Lal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Abdul Son of Fazru Vs State of Rajasthan

Dallaram Bhatnagar S/O Shri Bakhataram, Vs State of Rajasthan

Indraraj Saini Son of Late Shri Mool Chand Saini, Vs State of Rajasthan

Indraraj Saini Son of Late Shri Mool Chand Saini, Vs State of Rajasthan