"Family Can't Force A Woman To Get Married": Delhi HC Directs Family Not To Contact Her; Allows 26Yr Old Woman To Stay With Shabnam Hashmi As Per Her Wish

The Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar interacted with XYZ and her father, wherein the father assured the Court that XYZ's wishes will be fully respected in this regard, however, XYZ expressed her wish that she wants "some time and space for herself and wants to be left alone by her family."

In view of the above-said, the Court adjourned the proceedings to 01.12.2020. During this period, XYZ stated that she would be staying with Social Activist Shabnam Hashmi, her Pairokar.

The Matter before the Court

According to the petition, XYZ, a 26-year-old woman was taken away from Delhi by the Rajasthan Police on Tuesday (24^th November) while she was having lunch in Jamia Nagar with her friends.

It may be noted that her father made a police complaint in Dhaulpur, Rajasthan, which is also her place of work, bearing FIR No. 444/2020, under Sections 363,366 and 342IPC, PS Nihal Ganj, Dhaulpur, Rajasthan. In pursuance of that FIR, Rajasthan Police came to Delhi and picked her up.

Pertinently, XYZ was not the named accused in the said FIR, but was stated to be the victim of the alleged offences stated in the FIR.

Pursuant to this, a Petition was filed before the Delhi High Court by her seeking her own production and safety for herself (through her pairokar).

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (25^th November) issued notice to the State of Rajasthan through its Resident Commissioner in Delhi and the Rajasthan Police was directed to be represented before the Court on 26^th November.

The State of Rajasthan was also directed to produce XYZ through a video link before the Court.

Court's proceedings on Thursday (26^th November)

In pursuance of the Court's 25^th November order, the Rajasthan Police and Delhi Police produced XYZ, the petitioner before the Court through a video link.

Firstly, the Court interacted with Mr. Vasudev Singh, CO, Mania, Additional SP, who brought XYZ back to Delhi.

The Court asked him as to why XYZ was taken away by force, when she herself had informed him and others from Rajasthan Police that she had not been kidnapped or abducted, and that she was at Jamia Nagar of her own free will; he admitted that XYZ has made the said statement to him.

He, however, stated that his intention was to produce XYZ before the competent Magistrate in Rajasthan where the FIR was registered to get her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

To this, the Court said,

"The appropriate course of action for them (Rajasthan Police) would have been to produce XYZ before the local Metropolitan Magistrate, or Judicial Magistrate, even if they had reason to believe that she may not be making her statement out of her own free will. There was no purpose to be achieved in driving her away to Rajasthan against her will."

XYZ alleged that police had come to look for her; she started running in the by-lanes of the locality.

She also stated that she was forced into a car violently by a male officer of the Rajasthan Police, who came with his arms open, and who was not in uniform. Her mobile phone was taken away and was not returned to her despite her repeated demand.

She further stated that she also told the police that she would like to have her statement recorded in Delhi, and this request was not heeded to.

She also stated that one hour before she and the police party reached Dholpur, Rajasthan, they all stopped for dinner on a roadside restaurant where the police party also consumed liquor.

To this, the Court said,

"All these allegations, if true, raise very serious issues with regard to the working of the police force, and certainly, call for investigation and appropriate action. Being a woman, it was not open for the male force to forcibly push XYZ into a car. We have already noticed that she was not an accused, and was stated to be a victim of the offence in the FIR got registered by father and uncle of XYZ."

Notably, the Court directed the Home Department, State of Rajasthan, to look into the aforesaid aspects and cause an enquiry to be made into them and take appropriate action accordingly, with expedition.

Court's Order

The Court, in its order observed,

"The manner in which the whole incident had taken place has, obviously, left both XYZ and her family members in a state of emotional trauma."

The Court noted that the incident which took place "has now sent a clear message to her family that XYZ does not wish to get married at this stage, and her father has also stated that absolutely no force or pressure would be put on her to get married now, or at any other stage."

XYZ in her statement said that she does not wish to end her relationship with her family. However, she stated that she "would like to get in touch with them as per her desire, and as and when she wishes."

As stated, the Delhi Police was directed to drop her forthwith to the residence of Social Activist Shabnam Hashmi.

In the meantime, the Court directed that her father and, through him, his family members to not try to contact her.

The Court asked Delhi Commission for Women members to act as a communication bridge between XYZ and her family members, and also to counsel both sides, so as to bring about an amicable resolution and restore the confidence between them.