- (1.) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by Meenakshi Dixit and Ashutosh Patwari, who are both major and claim to have attracted and married with each other. They have approached this Court with a prayer that the respondents-State authorities may be directed to provide them adequate security and that the direction be issued that they shall not be harassed either by police authorities or respondent No. 4 - father of petitioner No. 1 Meenakshi Dixit, who according to them is opposed to their marriage. Opposition to the marriage is owing to the fact that this is an intercaste marriage. Not only the father but other family members of petitioner No. 1 have also not accepted the marriage. Father of Petitioner No. 1 Shri Pawan Kumar Dixit lodged the FIR against petitioner No. 2 - Ashutosh Patwari and, thereafter, he also filed a complaint under Section 97 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sikar against petitioner No. 2. Respondent No. 4 threatened petitioner No. 2 that if petitioner No. 1 does not return to the parental house, he will face the dire consequences. Petitioners are continuously receiving threats and danger to their lives. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed on record marriage certificate of the petitioners.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that habeas corpus petition even in such circumstances can be maintained. In support of his arguments, he has 'placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SMD Kiran Pasa v. Government of Andhra Pradesh : (1990) 1 SCC 328.
(3.) Shri Vijay Poonia, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has denied the allegations that respondent No. 4 has threatened the petitioner and that there is any apprehension or danger to their lives. Fie has cited the judgment of Supreme Court in Kanu Sanyal v. Distt. Magistrate Darjeeling : 1974 AIR 510 and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case, habeas corpus petition would not be maintainable.;