New Delhi: A runaway couple in their 20s from Rewa district in Madhya Pradesh, who solemnised their marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act at an Arya Samaj temple in Lucknow on August 25, sought protection from the Supreme Court in view of threats of violence from the girl’s family against the boy and his family. The young couple said they have been in a relationship since their school days.
A division bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, on Wednesday, October 18, took serious note of the allegations in the petition (Ambika Prasad Mishra vs State of Madhya Pradesh) that the woman’s parents are very influential, and had threatened to kill the man, Ambika Prasad Mishra, 24, and his family before the couple decided to flee.
The petitioner-couple alleged that the girl’s parents hired goons to attack the man’s parents, ransacked their house, and caused damage worth more than Rs 18 lakh to their properties, besides wrongfully confining the family members. The petition also alleged inaction by the local Dabhora police station on the complaint filed by the man’s parents and justified the couple’s decision to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the constitution as a bid to avoid local pressures.
The bench directed the respondents, including the chief secretary, Madhya Pradesh; director general of police; and superintendent of police, Rewa district to provide adequate security to the couple, who were present in the court, so that they are able to proceed to their native village and reside there peacefully without apprehension.
The bench directed that the protection to the couple should be granted “till further orders”, and directed the further listing of the case on November 24.
“Let it (the issue) simmer down. They should accept that she is an adult,” Justice Nagarathna observed during the hearing.
The bench took note of the fact that the family of the woman Ratri Mishra, 21, can create problems for her. “In view of the peculiar facts of the case, call the parents to accept the wedding,” Justice Nagarathna told the counsel for the state.
The arguing counsel for the petitioners, A.K. Shukla, told the bench that the couple knew each other and had been friends since their school days and waited to marry till they became adults. Although both the families are Brahmins, and the man’s family has consented to their marriage, the woman’s family didn’t because of ‘ego’, the counsel told the bench. The woman’s parents allegedly wanted to get her married to a man of their choice, without her consent. The woman’s family allegedly pressured her because the man’s family did not match their social and financial status.
The bench directed that the police should counsel the woman’s parents to respect their daughter’s right to choose her life partner. “Let them have a proper marriage ceremony at the earliest, considering her condition,” Justice Nagarathna said.
Advocate Nihal Ahmad drafted the writ petition for the petitioner-couple.
