2023:PHHC:050845
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
113
CRWP-3447-2023
Decided on : 13.04.2023
Shilpy Saini and another
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and others
. . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. Ranbir Singh Pathania, Advocate
for the petitioners.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
Prayer in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of directions to official respondents No.2 & 3, to provide protection of lives and liberty of the petitioners, who have married against the wishes of private respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1
- Shilpy Saini, aged about 24 years and petitioner No.2 - Nikhil Chalotra, aged about 25 years, have solemnized marriage on 10.04.2023, against the wishes of their family members, arrayed as respondents No.4 & 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that it is the first marriage of both the petitioners. It has been submitted that the private respondents are threatening to interfere in the matrimonial life of the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are seeking protection in that regard and have approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition. They have also submitted a representation dated 10.04.2023 (Annexure P-4), to respondent No.2 - Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur, wherein, they have expressed KAVITA NAIN 2023.04.13 15:10 their apprehension.
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment 2023:PHHC:050845 CRWP-3447-2023 -2-
3. Notice of motion.
4. On asking of the Court, Mr. JS Arora, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 (State).
5. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 - Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur, to look into the representation dated 10.04.2023 (Annexure P-4), qua threat perception, and if there is any substance in it, take necessary steps, in accordance with law, to ensure that the lives and liberty of the petitioners are not jeopardized at the hands of the private respondents.
6. However, this direction will not validate the marriage said to have taken place between the parties and will have no effect on any civil or criminal action, which could be initiated in the matter in accordance with law.
(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE April 13, 2023 k.nain Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No KAVITA NAIN 2023.04.13 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment