- (1.) These are the applications of the respondent no.4 to recall the order passed by this Bench on 04.08.2011 in connection with marriage between petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and interference with their private life and to proceed under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter in short called as ' Cr.P.C.'). Like few others, in this State also, even in 21st century so many factors are involved in connection with the life and security of the married couples. Casteism, religionism, 'honour' killings, forcible departure of the boy and girl from each other even by the parents or family members, threat, pressure and many other nature of transgress, infringes their life and personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. As a result whereof, we have started believing that such actions are not in the garb of but in the wake of violation of Article 21.
(2.) This Court framed out a common order expressing its feelings, but only with a positive rider that where no First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as the 'FIR') has been lodged or inquiry or necessary police actions are taken by either of the parties, it is expected that no coercive action will be taken against the newly wedded couples, who are otherwise entitled to choose the better half to marry and settle. Even the Supreme Court has proceeded to the extent of justifying the cause of living together in the judgment (Gian Devi Vs. Supdt., Nari Niketan, Delhi, 1976 3 SCC 234), and held as under : "7. It is the case of the petitioner that she was born on June 5, 1994. As against that, the plea of Sheesh Pal Singh, father of the petitioner, is that she was born on April 20, 1956. Whatever may be the date of birth of the petitioner, the fact remains that she is at present more than 18 years of age. As the petitioner is sui juris no fetters can be placed upon her choice of the person with whom she is to stay, nor can any restriction be imposed regarding the place where she should stay. The court or the relatives of the petitioner can also not substitute their opinion or preference for that of the petitioner in such a matter. The fact that the petitioner has been cited as a witness in a case is no valid ground for her detention in Nari Niketan against her wishes. Since the petitioner has stated unequivocally that she does not want to stay in Nari Niketan, her detention therein cannot be held to be in accordance with law. We accordingly direct that the petitioner be set at liberty."
(3.) In (Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P and another, 2006 5 SCC 475) the Supreme Court has also held as follows : "17. The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when we have to be united to face the challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence, inter-caste marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying the caste system. However, disturbing news are coming from several parts of the country that young men and women who undergo inter-caste marriage, are threatened with violence, or violence is actually committed on them. In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter- religious marriage. We, therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple are not harassed by any one nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and any one who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law.";