Sunny Kumar And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 563 P&H

                                                                         -1-
CRWP-1041-2021


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                             CRWP-1041-2021
                                             Date of Decision: 12.02.2021

Sunny Kumar and another

                                                           ... Petitioners
                                        Versus

State of Punjab and others

                                                          ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present: Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate, for the petitioners.

HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral)

Case is taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing.

This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing

respondents No.2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the

hands of respondents No.4 and 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that though petitioner

No.2 is major yet petitioner No.1 is minor. They want to live together in a

live-in relationship and to marry with each other on attaining the

marriageable age of petitioner No.1. They have sought protection to their

life and liberty as they apprehend danger at the hands of respondents No.4

and 5. The petitioners have submitted a representation dated 29.01.2021

(Annexure P-5) to respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar.

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners

relies upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

1 of 3

CRWP-1041-2021

`Nandakumar and another Vs. State of Kerala and others' 2018(2) RCR

(Civil) 899, wherein it was held that even if the boy was not competent to

enter into wedlock, they have right to live together even outside wedlock. It

would not be out of place to mention that `live-in-relationship' is now

recognized by the Legislature itself. He also relies upon the judgment

passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-31834-2019 titled as

'Megha and another Vs. State of Haryana and others' decided on

04.11.2019.

Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 3-State only at this

stage.

On the asking of this Court, Ms. Samina Dhir, DAG, Punjab,

accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Article 21 of the Constitution stipulates protection of life and

liberty to every citizen and that no person shall be deprived of his life and

personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. It is the

bounden duty of the State as per the Constitutional obligations cast upon it

to protect the life and liberty of every citizen. Mere fact that petitioner No.1

is not of marriageable age would not deprive the petitioners of their

fundamental right as envisaged in the Constitution, being citizens of India.

In view of the above and without entering upon an exercise to

evaluate the evidentiary value of the documents placed on the file, I dispose

of the present petition with a direction to respondent No.2-Commissioner

of Police, Jalandhar, to decide the representation dated 29.01.2021

(Annexure P-5) moved by the petitioners, and grant protection to them, if

2 of 3

CRWP-1041-2021

any threat to their life and liberty is perceived.

It is made clear that this order shall not be taken to protect the

petitioners from legal action for violation of law, if any, committed by them.

12.02.2021                                       (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
parveen kumar                                          JUDGE

Note:           Whether speaking/reasoned                :    Yes/No
                Whether reportable                       :    Yes/No




                                   3 of 3