AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Basant, J.—Petitioners, a young man and woman in love, have come to this Court complaining about threat to their lives from Respondents 2 and 3 who are none other than the mother and maternal uncle of the girl.
The father of the girl is employed abroad. Marriage between the Petitioners was agreed upon and there was a betrothal with the blessings of the parents. But, subsequently, it is said that Respondents 2 and 3 are not willing for the marriage and they were hurriedly trying to find out another groom for the second Petitioner. In these circumstances, the second Petitioner had gone to the first Petitioner and they are now living together at his house. The marriage was to be solemnised in the church, but the church authorities are now unwilling to co-operate because of the resistance of Respondents 2 and 3. The Petitioners, it is alleged, now apprehend that Respondents 2 and 3 may physically assault and indulge in violence against the Petitioners. They pray that police protection may be granted to them to enable them to get married under the Special Marriage Act on or after 26.4.2011. Requisite notice has already been given on 26.3.2011 as is revealed from Ext.P4, it is submitted.
Respondents 2 and 3 have entered appearance through counsel. The learned Counsel submits that cruel allegations have been unnecessarily raised against Respondents 2 and 3. It is heartless to allege that Respondents 2 and 3, mother and maternal uncle of the second Petitioner, would even think of indulging any physical violence against her and the first Petitioner. The allegation that Respondents 2 and 3 are planning to murder and liquidate Petitioners 1 and 2 reveals the length to which Petitioners would go to make false allegations. At any rate, the learned Counsel for Respondents 2 and 3 submits that Respondents 2 and 3 shall not indulge in any acts of violence against the Petitioners. That undertaking may be recorded. They are even now willing to give the second Petitioner in marriage to the first Petitioner harmoniously by a church wedding. But, they want the second Petitioner to return to their house and facilitate a proper marriage acceptable to the community. The second Petitioner is unwilling to return to Respondents 2 and 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the second Petitioner has no difference of opinion with her father, but she is unwilling to go with Respondents 2 and 3.
The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that protection shall be afforded by the police for Petitioners 1 and 2. Such protection shall be afforded for getting their marriage registered under the Special Marriage Act on or after 26.4.2011. Appropriate directions may be issued, it is submitted.
We have considered all the relevant inputs. We record the submission of Respondents 2 and 3 through their counsel that they undertake not to indulge in any acts of violence against the Petitioners or indulge in any conduct to obstruct their marriage under the Special Marriage Act. In the light of the said submission, we do not think that issue of any specific directions under Article 226 is necessary. We do take note of the submissions of the learned Government Pleader that police protection shall be afforded to Petitioners 1 and 2 to get married and to live together.
Accepting the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, this writ petition is dismissed.
ORDER
Heard. Admitted. Notice given and the learned Government Pleader appears for Respondent No. 1. Issue notice to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Counsel for the Petitioner prays and accordingly, the Petitioner is permitted to take out notice to Respondents 2 and 3 by special messenger. Verify service and call again on 7.4.2011.
Counsel for the Petitioners prays for an interim order. Heard. We are satisfied that an interim order deserves to be granted. There shall, hence, be an interim order to Respondent No. 1 to afford protection to the Petitioners to deter any threat against the lives and persons of the Petitioners emanating from Respondents 2 and 3.