Sonia Gokani, J.:— Leave to amend.
2. Petitioner is before this Court seeking to provide police protection, as they are apprehensive of the condu ct of the family members of both the petitioners. The petitioner is 19 years old and is desirous of marrying Mr. Mahavirsinh Vikramsinh Zala, who has not yet completed 21 years of age on 20.10.2016
3. Learned advocate Mr. Saiyed for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner has left her parents out of her own volition. However, she is apprehensive of honour killing by the family, as they are not agreeable to her marrying the person from the very caste. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 has submitted that boy she is desirous of marrying has not as yet attained the marriageable age.
4. Heard learned advocates for both the sides.
5. The Court notices that not only the young age of the boy is the issue, at this stage, according to the petitioner, her relationship with him is also being objected to by the family, as they both are under a threat from the family. Therefore, she has urged to protect herself and her husband.
6. This Court notices that the application earlier made to the police Inspector was by the petitioner herself and not by petitioner No. 2 who is permitted to be impleaded as party petitioner No. 2.
7. Considering the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 2006 SC 2522, as there is threat to honour killing. Let the concerned police officer apply his mind and provide police protection. The length of grant of police protection shall be depending on the ground reality.
8. Petition is allowed in above terms. Disposed of accordingly.
9. Direct service is permitted.
Comments