AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Basant, J.—This judgment shall be read in continuation of the order dated 20th June, 2011. The Petitioner, a young girl aged about 20 years has come to this Court seeking police protection against the action of the second Respondent, who is compelling her to enter matrimony against her wishes with one Subin for which marriage, Ext.P1 invitation has been printed. That marriage is scheduled to take place on 10/07/2011.
This petition was admitted and notice was ordered to the second Respondent. The second Respondent though duly served has not chosen to appear before this Court. The learned Government Pleader represents the first Respondent. Though there was a submission that there is some attempt to settle the matter, the matter has not been settled still, it is admitted.
The second Respondent has not chosen to appear before this Court and report any settlement. We did in these circumstances, issued the interim order dated 20/06/2011. The following direction was issued:
There shall be an interim direction to the 1st Respondent that, in the meantime, adequate protection shall be afforded to the Petitioner to ensure that she is not compelled to enter matrimony before that date with any one by the 2nd Respondent.
Today, when the matter came up for hearing, we note that the second Respondent has not appeared before Court. We understand the plight of the second Respondent. The learned Government Pleader submits that police have contradicted the second Respondent and he has accused the police that the proposed marriage which was to take place on 10/7/2011 as per Ext.P1 invitation has now been called off. He shall not in any way compel the Petitioner to get married to any person against her will. The learned Government Pleader, in these circumstances, submits that it may not strictly be necessary to issue any directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
We have considered all the relevant inputs. We find merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in as much as the second Respondent has not chosen to appear before Court and make his submission directly before Court, the interim order issued on 20/6/2011 can be made absolute.
In the result:
A) This petition is allowed.
B) The interim order dated 20/6/2011 extracted above is made absolute.