SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H. P.
LAWS(HPH)-2021-2-21
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on February 19,2021

SANJEEV KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF H. P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Vivek Singh Thakur,J. - (1.) This petition has been preferred by petitioner Sanjeev Kumar with submissions that he and Ms Komal Parmar, for the last many years, are friendly and are having liking towards each other and ultimately they have decided to marry each other but for the reason that they belong to different castes, as petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste family whereas Ms Komal Parmar belongs to a Rajput family, an application under Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 was presented by the petitioner and Ms Komal Parmar, supported by their respective affidavits, before Special Marriage Officer, on 1.2.2021. It is also pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that application and affidavits were prepared on 29.1.2021 but for nonavailability of Special Marriage Officer on that day as well as on 30.1.2021, the application was presented before the concerned authority on 1.2.2021, because 31.1.2021 was a Sunday and immediately after submission of application, petitioner and Ms Komal Parmar had decided to live together, but for opposition to inter-caste marriage; family, relatives and friends of Ms Komal Parmar had become furious and had started extending threats and, in such circumstances, petitioner and Ms Komal Parmar left Hamirpur and took a shelter at Palampur on 1.2.2021. On the same day, respondent No.3 Ashwani Parmar, father of Ms Komal Parmar, alongwith other persons went to the village of petitioner and seized the house of petitioner to mount pressure, and family of petitioner was threatened and maltreated and even threat was extended to abduct the sister of petitioner in lieu of Ms Komal Parmar. After knowing about such incident, petitioner and Ms Komal Parmar had decided to come back from Palampur to Hamirpur, however, when they reached near Jawalamukhi, 4-5 vehicles intercepted the vehicle in which petitioner and Ms Komal Parmar were travelling and around 20-25 persons came out of those vehicle and overpowered Ms Komal Parmar after beating petitioner and had taken her alongwith them.
(2.) It has been claimed in the petition that Ms Komal Parmar has been detained by respondent No.3, her family members and friends against her wishes, so as to prevent solemnization of marriage of petitioner with Ms Komal Parmar and petitioner is being continuously threatened by the family and friends of Ms Komal Parmar and also by other persons belonging to their caste. Further that the only reason that petitioner belongs to a caste which is considered by family, relatives and friends of Ms Komal Parmar a lower caste, is the cause of whole incident leading to abduction and illegal detention of Ms Komal Parmar and, thus, petitioner has prayed for production of Ms Komal Parmar by way of present Writ Petition and also for direction to respondents-State to provide appropriate security to the petitioner and his family members as there is imminent threat to their lives and property.
(3.) In sequel to order dated 9.2.2021, directing respondents to produce Ms Komal Parmar, she had attended the Court on 12.2.2021, alongwith Police Officers/officials. On that day, during interaction with the Court, Ms Komal Parmar, instead of returning to parental home, had expressed her desire to live in Nari Niketan Mashobra, District Shimla and, therefore, she was directed to be taken to the said Nari Niketan, with direction to produce her in the Court on 16.2.2021, with further direction to respondent No.3 her father to remain present in the Court on next date of hearing. Thereafter, case was adjourned for 16.2.2021 and 18.2.2021 and has been taken up for final decision today, i.e. 19.2.2021. During this period Ms Komal Parmar stayed in Nari Niketan alone without having any facility of Mobile Phone etc. and during this period she was having sufficient time to consider and reconsider the issues of her life to decide her fate. On each hearing, there was interaction with Ms Komal Parmar, her father and petitioner Sanjeev Kumar in presence of all of them and individually also in absence of others.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.