Rajasthan High Court: Dinesh Mehta J. rejected the petition and disposed off the stay application.
The instant petitions were filed by couples who have fled home and have decided to marry and are now before the Court seeking police protection.
The Court relied on judgment Lata Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 2522, wherein it was observed that the Courts are not meant to provide protection to such youths, who have simply fled to marry according to their own wishes.
The Court observed that there is no material or reason for this Court to conclude that the petitioners’ life and liberty are at peril. There is not even an iota of evidence to evince that private respondents (relatives of the petitioner 1) are likely to cause physical or mental assault to the petitioners. If the petitioners have decided to marry, they must muster the audacity and possess tenacity to face and to persuade the society and their family to accept the step they have taken.
The Court observed that 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. If any person misbehaves or manhandles 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.
The Court held “any serious threat perception to the petitioners is not found and, therefore, there is no requirement of passing any order for providing police protection to them”
[Shobha v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 545/2022, decided on 11-01-2022]
Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
Appearances:
For petitioner: Mr Ankit Chaudhary
