Delhi High Court Asks Police To Respond To Intercaste Couple's Plea For Protection
The Delhi High Court on Friday sought Delhi Police's response on an intercaste couple's petition for protection. While hearing a protection plea moved by the intercaste major couple who married against the consent of the girl’s family, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani also suggested that Delhi Police could consider having a “runaway couple cell” for helping and assisting the couples, who...
The Delhi High Court on Friday sought Delhi Police's response on an intercaste couple's petition for protection.
While hearing a protection plea moved by the intercaste major couple who married against the consent of the girl’s family, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani also suggested that Delhi Police could consider having a “runaway couple cell” for helping and assisting the couples, who are major and marry against the consent of their families and receive threats from them. The court in this regard referred to Ashok Kumar Todi case.
The Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Todi v. Kishwar Jahan & Ors in 2011 had directed the police authorities throughout the country to ensure that a major couple, who undergoes intercaste or inter-religious marriage, is not harassed by anyone or subjected to threats or acts of violence.
The Apex Court had ruled: “If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or interreligious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage.”
The couple in the case before the High Court married in a Arya Samaj Mandir in Tis Hazari on April 07 and were furnished a marriage certificate.
The couple allegedly are receiving threats from the family of the woman as they married without seeking their consent. The couple thus sought police protection regarding their life and liberty against the threats.
The counsel appearing for the couple submitted that both the individuals, who were also present in court, are major as evidenced by their identity cards annexed in the plea. It was contended that despite a complaint having been filed by them with the concerned SHO on April 11, the police did not proactively help them.
On the other hand, the Additional Standing Counsel appearing for Delhi Police submitted that adequate steps will be taken to ensure safety and security of the couple.
“It is directed that the cell phone number of the SHO and the beat constable be furnished to the petitioners [couple] who they may call in any eventuality,” the court said.
While issuing notice in the plea, the court also sought a status report from the Delhi police within six weeks and listed the matter for hearing next in September.
Title: MS. BABY & ANR. v. THE STATE GOV. OF NCT OF DELHI