The MP High Court in Sakshi Sahu and Others Vs the State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others from their society and parents. The Court further directed the police to not take any action against the petitioner/ boy pursuant to the FIR registered against him by the family to the petitioner/girl for the alleged offence of kidnapping.
The case of the Petitioner states that they were two adults who are known to each other since childhood and are living together as per their own free will. As they boy was of Muslim Community and when they proposed the idea of their marriage to the family of the girl, the couple was threatened with dire consequences as the boy was from Muslim Community. Apprehending her death, the girl left the house and moved outside Madhya Pradesh with her girl (Partner). They were unaware of the provision of Special Marriage Act and got married in the Temple.
While the two adults were away the parents of the Petitioner/girl, in connivance with the State Authorities got the house of the Petitioner/boy, and the shop of his Father demolished without giving any notice. Therefore, to put pressure on the family members, they filed a false complaint of abduction against him, his family and friends, the Petitioner informed the Court.
“Both the petitioners are present in the court it is stated by the Petitioner No.1. that she is a major person of being 22 years of age and has willingly married Petitioner No.2. The Petitioner have further stated that they were wrongly advised to get married in the temple and nobody has informed them that they should get their marriage registered under Special Marriage Act. They submit that they will get their marriage registered under the Special Marriage Act, as both of them are living together since 07.04.2022. It is further stated that being a citizen of India, they have a right to choose the life partner of their choice. It is pointed that the parents of Petitioner No.1. has registered an FIR against petitioner No.2. stating that she was kidnapped by him. Petitioner No.1. has clarified in the Court that she was not kidnapped by him, rather she was willing inly gone with Petitioner No.2. and under such circumstances and under the threat from the society and parents of Petitioner No.1, they have come before the court seeking protection”.
The petitioner under such circumstances and under the threatening from the society and parents, they were seeking protection from the court and further sought for compensation from the state for illegally demolishing the house of the petitioner/boy and his father’s shop.
Justice Nandita Dubey directed:
Respondent No.3 to 6 are directed not to take any action against the Petitioners on the basis of the FIR lodged by the relatives of Petitioner No.1. Further they will also be given protection, in case any action is taken against them by the society or the parents of Petitioner No.1
Considering the Aforesaid situation Notices are to be issued to the respondents on payment of process fee within seven working days by all models, returnable within three weeks.
While the two adults were away the parents of the pe titioner/girl, in connivance with the State Authorities got the house of the petitioner/ boy, and the shop of his fa ther demolished without giving any notice.