Indore (Madhya Pradesh): A couple and their family members have approached the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, alleging that a community organisation imposed an 11-year social boycott, levied a penalty of ₹51k on their families and ₹2,100 on every person who attended their marriage after they entered into a lawful Sagotra (same-gotra) marriage.
According to the writ appeal, office-bearers of the Kshatriya Kushwah Samaj Sangathan, operating in Barwani, Dhar and Khargone districts, passed resolutions enforcing the social boycott and monetary penalties.
The petition further alleges that those who attended the marriage were threatened with social ostracism and disciplinary action.
Hearing the matter, a Division Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Alok Awasthi issued notices to the State Government, district authorities, police officials and private respondents, directing them to file their replies.
The Bench also observed that if the petitioners or any member of their family faced any threat, intimidation or danger to their life or liberty, the concerned police authorities must immediately take appropriate steps to ensure their protection.
The appeal, filed through advocate Abhinav Dhanodkar, states that despite repeated representations to the police and district administration seeking protection and preventive action, no effective measures were taken.
The appellants claim they continue to face intimidation, unlawful social pressure and fear for their safety, forcing them to approach the High Court.
The petition raises constitutional questions relating to the right of two consenting adults to marry a person of their choice, the legality of social boycott by community organisations and the State's duty to safeguard fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
It also relies on Supreme Court judgments, including Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and Arumugam Servai v. State of Tamil Nadu, which strongly condemn interference by caste bodies and extra-constitutional community mechanisms in lawful marriages.
The matter will now be heard after the respondents file their replies.
