 "No police protection just for marrying against parents' wishes: Allahabad HC")
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that couples who marry against the wishes of their families cannot claim police protection as a matter of right unless there is a clear and serious threat to their life or liberty.
The observation was made during the hearing of a writ petition filed by Shreya Kesarwani and her husband. The couple had sought police protection and a direction to prevent their family members from interfering in their married life.
Justice Saurabh Srivastava, who presided over the case, noted that while courts can intervene to provide security in deserving cases, couples must also “learn to support each other and face society” when no genuine threat is established.
After reviewing the case, the court found no evidence suggesting that the couple was in any danger.
“There is not even an iota of evidence to evince that private respondents [relatives of either of the petitioners] are likely to cause a physical or mental assault to the petitioners,” the court said in its order dated April 4.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lata Singh vs State of UP (AIR 2006 SC 2522), the high court reiterated that protection cannot be granted merely because two adults chose to marry without parental approval.
“There is no requirement of passing any order for providing police protection to them,” the court added, dismissing the plea. The order also clarified that if, at any point, someone misbehaves with or harms the couple, they are free to approach the police or the courts for necessary assistance.
This recent ruling comes at a time when the Allahabad High Court has faced criticism from the Supreme Court in two separate instances for passing insensitive remarks in its judgments.
The Supreme Court recently expressed strong displeasure over an Allahabad High Court order granting bail to a rape accused, stating that the complainant "herself invited trouble" by agreeing to go to the accused's house after getting drunk. A bench led by Justice BR Gavai found these observations highly insensitive, emphasising, “Yes, bail can be granted... but what is this discussion that she herself invited trouble, etc.? One has to be careful when saying such things, especially on this side [judges].” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta highlighted, "Complete justice should not only be done but also seen to be done."
In another case, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance and stayed another controversial observation by the Allahabad High Court, which had held that grabbing breasts and pulling the drawstring of a woman's attire did not amount to an attempt to rape. The apex court strongly condemned these observations as reflecting a "total insensitivity and inhuman approach" and described the matter as "very serious."
(With agency inputs)