Recently, a girl hailing from Patti Dhamtan Sahib in Haryana’s Jind went to Punjab & Haryana High Court to seek protection for herself and her live-in partner who is a resident of Rasidan village in the same district. According to India Today, since they eloped they allegedly faced threats and they feared that the girl’s family might harass them or implicate the man in a false criminal case.
Their lawyer sought protection citing the nature of their relationship and also said, “such type of relationship will certainly put an end to the dowry.”
TOI quoted Justice Anil Kshetarpal observing,
“Petitioner no.1 (Girl) is barely 18 years old whereas petitioner no.2 (Boy) is 21 years old. They claim to be residing together in a live-in relationship and claim protection of their life and liberty from the relatives of petitioner no.1 (Girl).”
Live Law further quoted him adding,
“If such protection as claimed is granted, the entire social fabric of the society would get disturbed. Hence, no ground to grant the protection is made out.”
Here is how people reacted to the rejection of the plea:
Irony- social fabric is safe when there's no questioning of marital rape! Marital rape still legal in this country.
Social fabric is damaged if two people who are in love, live together.
Such a medeival mindset. https://t.co/FWY8bMk9UC— Suchi SA (@suchi_a) May 14, 2021
What a weak social fabric! https://t.co/XRBJd64m6G
— Manu Sebastian (@manuvichar) May 14, 2021
So now the courts decide how people should live? Wonder what is happening to the 25 Crore pending cases – guess they will never get resolved with all these useless judgements!
— Rajesh A (@asarpotar) May 14, 2021
wow…thats so so so dumb and backward… so much
— normie (@normie30439029) May 14, 2021
if they are both adults then they have every right to live as they want to. if the threat is real then its the citizens rights to get protected.
the reported observation of the court just doesn’t make sense. something more that is not reported?— sane_head (@Marwein_TJ) May 14, 2021
What do you think of this ruling? Tell us.