Rubina vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

The petitioners, who are stated to be major, approached the High Court seeking protection. They claimed that their marriage, which was against the wishes of the brother and family members of petitioner no.1, had led to threats against them. Petitioner no.1 stated she had passed 3rd standard, and petitioner no.2, who had passed High School, runs an Air Conditioner repair shop in Dehradun and possesses a GST registration number. Both petitioners asserted a grave threat to their life and liberty due to their marriage against the wishes of the private respondents (respondent nos.4 to 7).

Held

The Court held that since both petitioners are major and have entered into a matrimonial alliance, they are entitled to protection. Relying on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another; 2006 (5) SCC 475, the Court found it inclined to grant protection. The reasoning is based on the fundamental right to life and liberty of major individuals who have made their own choices regarding marriage. The Court directed the S.H.O. Police Station Civil Lines, Roorkee, District Haridwar to provide adequate protection to the petitioners for a period of six weeks and ensure no harm is caused to them by the private respondents or anyone acting on their behalf. After six weeks, the S.H.O. is to assess the threat perception and provide further protection if necessary. The S.H.O. is also directed to counsel the private respondents against taking law into their hands or issuing threats or coercion.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners, being major and having entered into a matrimonial alliance against the wishes of private respondents, are entitled to protection of their life and liberty under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court? Arguments for the Petitioners: The petitioners argued that as they are major and have voluntarily entered into a marriage, their fundamental right to life and liberty, as guaranteed by the Constitution, must be protected from any threats or coercion by the private respondents. They relied on the principle that adults have the right to choose their life partners. Arguments for the State/Revenue: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State or Revenue. However, the Court's decision implies that the State, through its law enforcement machinery, has a duty to provide protection when such threats are brought to its notice.