Punjab-Haryana High Court
Roopa Rani And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 19 August, 2021
CRWP-7849-2021 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP-7849-2021.
Date of Decision:-19.08.2021.
Roopa Rani and another
.....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
****
Present: Mr. Karandeep Singh Dargan, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Saurav Khurana, DAG, Punjab.
(Through Video Conferencing)
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of
India praying for a writ, order or directions to official respondents,
especially in the nature of mandamus to protect the life and liberty of the
petitioners.
The petitioners are living in a "Live in Relationship". It has
been stated that date of birth of petitioner No.1, namely, Roopa Rani, is
08.01.2001 as is apparent from her Aadhar Card (Annexure P-1) and the age
of petitioner No.2, namely, Karam Chand is 18 years as is apparent from his
Aadhar Card (Annexure P-2). It is apparent that petitioner No.2, although is
a major but is not of marriageable age. It has further been submitted that the
1 of 6
petitioners have given a representation dated 10.08.2021 (Annexure P-3) to
respondent No.2-The Senior Superintendent of Police, Fazilka and the
petitioners are living in the said Live in Relationship out of their own free
will and without any pressure.
Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 to 3 only.
On advance notice, Mr. Saurav Khurana, learned Deputy
Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to
3.
This Court has considered the facts as stated in the petition as
well as in the accompanying annexures. This Court is aware of the fact that
petitioner No.2 is not of marriageable age and that petitioners even as per
their own case have not married and are living in a "Live in Relationship".
The issue as to whether protection of life and liberty should be
granted to a couple in a "Live in Relationship" is no longer res integra.
Reference in this regard may be made to the decision dated
09.08.2021 in CRWP-7451-2021 titled Tamnna and another Vs. State of
Punjab and others, in which in a similar case of "Live in Relationship", this
Court was pleased to direct the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala to
look into the threat perception of the petitioners therein and pass appropriate
order. Relevant portion of the order dated 09.08.2021 in CRWP-7451-2021
is reproduced hereasunder:-
"Petitioners have prayed for issuance of
necessary directions to the official respondents for
protecting their civil/personal rights and liberties from
2 of 6
being invaded by the private respondents.
Petitioners are living in live-in relationship.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner No.1 is more than 18 years of age. Petitioner
No.2 is more than 18 years of age, but he has not
attained the marriageable age of 21 years.
Precisely, in the context of aforesaid relief,
petitioners have approached the Senior Superintendent
of Police, Patiala, District Patiala/respondent No.2 by
way of representation dated 04.08.2021 (through
courier).
At this stage, this Court is only concerned with
lives and personal liberties of the petitioners.
Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 3.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sandeep Kumar,
D.A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of State-
respondents No.1 to 3.
At this stage, without meaning anything on the
merits of the case and without commenting upon
relationship or otherwise of the petitioners, respondent
No.2 is directed to look into the grievance of the
petitioners for which a representation has already been
filed by the petitioners on 04.08.2021. Respondent No.2
is directed to assess the threat perception of the
3 of 6
petitioners. It is made clear that this Court has not
commented upon validity of relationship or otherwise of
the petitioners in any manner. Respondent No.2 would
be fully empowered to look into the threat perception of
the petitioners by devising his/her own mechanism and
pass appropriate order on the representation dated
04.08.2021 preferably within a period of one month from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly."
It is also relevant to mention here that Coordinate Bench of this
Court had dismissed one Criminal Writ Petition bearing CRWP-4199-2021
vide order dated 11.05.2021 where the petitioners were also in "Live in
Relationship". Relevant portion of the said order dated 11.05.2021 passed
in CRWP-4199-2021 is reproduced hereasunder:-
"Petitioners Gulza Kumari and Gurwinder Singh
have filed the present petition stating that presently they
are residing together, though, they intend to get married
shortly; they are apprehending danger to their lives at
hands of parents of petitioner No.1-Gulza Kumari. As a
matter of fact, the petitioners in the garb of filing the
present petition are seeking seal of approval on their
live-in-relationship, which is morally and socially not
acceptable and no protection order in the petition can be
passed. The petition stands dismissed accordingly."
4 of 6
The same matter was, however, taken to Hon'ble the Supreme
Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4028 of 2021 and
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had vide its judgment dated 04.06.2021
disposed of the same in the following terms:-
"The petitioners in both the petitions are stated to
have represented to the Superintendent of Police.
The grievance is that the representation(s) has not
been considered by the police.
We have gone through the representation(s). we
dispose of both the petitions granting liberty to the
petitioners to supplement their representation to the
Superintendent of Police.
Needless to state that since it concerns life and
liberty, the Superintendent of Police is required to act
expeditiously in accordance with law, including the
grant of any protection to the petitioners in view of the
apprehensions/threats,uninfluenced by the observations
of the High Court.
The Special Leave Petitions stand disposed of.
Pending applications shall also stand disposed
of."
The aspect of life and liberty was considered to be a paramount
importance and thus, Superintendent of Police in the said case was directed
to act expeditiously in accordance with law, including the grant of any
5 of 6
protection to the petitioners therein.
Neither this Court wishes to go into the merits of the present
case nor wants to comment upon the relationship of the petitioners but the
only concern is with regard to their life and liberty, protection of which is of
paramount consideration.
After considering the abovesaid facts and without commenting
upon the legality of the relationship or expressing any opinion on merits of
the case, the present Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of with direction to
respondent No.2 to look into the representation dated 10.08.2021 (Annexure
P-3) and to assess the threat perception to the petitioners and after
considering the same, respondent No.2 shall take appropriate action in
accordance with law.
It is, however, clarified that this order shall not debar the State
from proceeding against the petitioners, if involved in any case.
Accordingly, the present Criminal Writ Petition stands disposed
of in the abovesaid terms.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
August 19, 2021.
sandeep
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes / No
Whether Reportable:- Yes / No.
6 of 6
