Court’s Decision:
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh directed the couple to approach the SHO of Police Station, Mahore, Reasi, if they apprehend any threat to their life and liberty. The SHO must investigate the grievance, and if found genuine, provide protection. The court clarified that the order does not validate the marriage or affect any ongoing investigations regarding the couple.
Facts:
The petitioners, both majors, solemnized their marriage on November 7, 2024, of their own free will. They alleged harassment and threats from respondents (private individuals), claiming an apprehension of danger to their lives. They supported their claims with age proofs (birth certificate and Class 10 marks sheet) and a marriage certificate (nikah nama).
Issues:
- Whether the petitioners face a genuine threat to their life and liberty due to their marriage.
- Whether police protection should be provided to the couple under such circumstances.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioners contended that despite being legally married and adults, they were being harassed and threatened by the respondents. They sought protection from the police to ensure their safety.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondents were represented by the Senior Additional Advocate General, but no substantive counterarguments or justifications for the alleged threats were recorded in the order.
Analysis of the Law:
The court reiterated its duty to safeguard the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, including the right to life and liberty under Article 21. It acknowledged the petitioners’ apprehensions and emphasized the responsibility of the police to protect citizens facing credible threats.
Precedent Analysis:
The judgment aligns with established legal principles that mandate police intervention in cases where individuals fear for their lives, particularly in matters involving personal freedoms like marriage.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court maintained a neutral stance on the validity of the marriage, underscoring that the order should not be construed as an endorsement of the relationship. It emphasized that the primary focus was the immediate protection of the petitioners’ life and liberty.
Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of with the direction that the SHO must provide protection to the petitioners if their concerns are found genuine. The court clarified that this order would not influence any related investigations or judicial proceedings.
Implications:
The judgment reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding individual freedoms, especially in cases of personal liberty. It also highlights the delicate balance courts maintain in providing immediate relief while refraining from preemptive validations of disputed facts.
Pingback: Delhi High Court Upholds Security Guard’s Earned Wages Claim: Employer’s Failure to Pay Wages and Absence in Proceedings Before Competent Authority Leads to Dismissal of Petition - Raw Law