Punjab-Haryana High Court
Soniya And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 May, 2021
CRWP-4533-2021 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(Heard through VC)
CRWP No.4533 of 2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision: May 18, 2021
Soniya and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present:- Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioners.
********
JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioners, having attained the age of 18, are seeking
protection of their life and liberty at the hands of the private respondents,
who are none other than the immediate family members of petitioner No. 1.
2. In brief the facts as stated are, that Ms. Soniya, petitioner No. 1
is aged 22 years 4 months with her date of birth being 01.01.1998, whereas
Mr. Anil, petitioner No. 2 is younger and is 19 years 6 months old, with his
date of birth being 26.09.2001. The parents of petitioner No. 1 wanted her
to marry a person of their choice and threatened her with dire consequences
in case she did not do so. Petitioner No. 1 left her paternal home and called
upon petitioner No. 2 (whom she had known for the past one year) to save
her from her parents, who wanted her to get married to a person who was
1 of 6
much older in age. Petitioner No. 2 requested her to go back, but being
fearful for her life and that she would be forcibly married to a person much
older than her, she refused to do so. Consequently, she shifted in with
petitioner No. 2. The petitioners decided to live together till such time as
they could solemnise a marriage, i.e. on petitioner No. 2 attaining the age of
21. It is also stated that the relationship would never be accepted by the
private respondents, as both belong to different castes. Petitioner No.1
belongs to Kashyap caste whereas petitioner No. 2 belongs to a Rabari
caste. The petitioners have already approached the SP, Karnal vide a
representation dated 12.05.2021 (Annexure P-3) seeking protection at the
hands of the private respondents, but there has been no response. Fearing a
threat to their life, as the relationship was not acceptable to the parents and
family members of petitioner No. 1 have threatened to kill the petitioners,
the instant criminal writ petition has been preferred.
3. Notice of motion to the official respondents only.
4. Mr. Vishal Kashyap, AAG Haryana, who is appearing through
the medium of video conferencing, accepts notice on behalf of the official
respondents-State and submits that the couple seeking protection are not
married and according to their own pleadings are in a live in relationship.
He would submit that the Coordinate Benches have recently dismissed
similar matters, where protection was sought by persons who are in live-in
relationship.
5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance
have gone through the pleadings of the case.
6. The petitioners have approached this court under Article 226 of
2 of 6
Constitution of India seeking protection of their life and liberty at the hands
of the private respondents, with a further prayer that they be restrained from
interfering in the peaceful live-in relationship of the petitioners. The
petitioners have not approached this court either seeking permission to
marry or for approval of their relationship. The limited prayer as noted is
for grant of protection to them, fearing the ire of family members of
petitioner No.1, on account of the parties belonging to a different caste and
their decision to reside together without the sanctity of a valid marriage.
7. This Court in the past and also recently has allowed protection
to those runaway couples, even though they were not married and were in a
live-in relationship, and in cases where the marriage was invalid (as one of
the parties though a major, was not of age as per Section 5 of the Hindu
Marriage Act). Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment
rendered by the Division Bench in Rajwinder Kaur and another Versus
State of Punjab, 2014 (4) RCR (Criminal) 785 where it was held that
marriage is not a must for security to be provided to a runaway couple. The
police authorities were directed to ensure that no harm was caused by any
one to the life and liberty of the couple. Similar views have been taken by
the Coordinate Benches in the matter Rajveer Kaur Versus State of
Punjab, 2019 (3) RCR (Civil) 478 and in Priyapreet Kaur Versus. State of
Punjab, 2021 (1) RCR (Civil) 604 amongst others. Different High Courts
too have allowed protection to runaway couples who are not married. Again
reference can be made to a recent judgement rendered by the Allahabad
High Court in Kamini Devi vs. State of UP ,2021(1) RCR (Civil) 421 and in
Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396.
3 of 6
8. The concept of a live in relationship may not be acceptable to
all, but it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal one or that
living together without the sanctity of marriage constitutes an offence. Even
under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a
woman who is in a 'domestic relationship' has been provided protection,
maintenance etc. It is interesting to note that the word 'wife' has not been
used under the said Act. Thus, the female live-in-partners and the children
of live-in-couples have been accorded adequate protection by the
Parliament.
9. Article 21 as enshrined in the Constitution of India provides for
its citizen to a right to life and personal liberty, with a stipulation that they
shall not be deprived of it except according to a procedure established by
law. In the case of Shakti Vahini Versus Union of India and others, 2018
(5) R.C.R ( Criminal) 981 the Supreme court has held "The right to
exercise Assertion of choice is an insegregable facet of liberty and dignity.
That is why the French philosopher and thinker, Simone Weil, has
said:-"Liberty, taking the word in its concrete sense consists in the ability
to choose." At this stage, one cannot also lose sight of honour killings
which are prevalent in northern parts of India, particularly in parts of States
of Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. Honour killing is a result
of people marrying without their family's acceptance, and sometimes for
marrying outside their caste or religion. Once an individual, who is a major,
has chosen his/her partner, it is not for any other person, be it a family
member, to object and cause a hindrance to their peaceful existence. It is
for the State at this juncture, to ensure their protection and their personal
4 of 6
liberty. It would be a travesty of justice in case protection is denied to
persons who have opted to reside together without the sanctity of marriage,
and such persons have to face dire consequences at the hands of persons
from whom protection is sought. In case such a course is adopted and
protection denied, the courts would also be failing in their duty to provide
its citizens a right to their life and liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India and to uphold to the Rule of law.
10. The petitioners herein, who are major, have taken a decision to
reside together without the sanctity of marriage and it is not for the courts to
judge them on their decision. The Supreme Court in a case rendered in S.
Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600 has held that live in
relationship is permissible and the act of two adults living together cannot
be considered illegal or unlawful, while further holding that the issue of
morality and criminality are not co-extensive. If the petitioners herein have
not committed any offence, this court sees no reason as to why their prayer
for grant of protection cannot be acceded to. Therefore, with due respect to
the judgments rendered by the Coordinate Benches, who have denied
protection to couples who are in live in relationship, this court is unable to
adopt the same view.
11. Without entering upon an exercise to evaluate the evidentiary
value of the documents placed on the file, I dispose of this petition with
directions to respondent No.2 to decide the representation of the petitioners
(Annexure P-3) within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order and grant them protection, if any threat to their life and
liberty is perceived. It is made clear that this order shall not be taken to
5 of 6
protect the petitioners from legal action for violation of law, if any
committed by them.
(JAISHREE THAKUR)
May 18, 2021 JUDGE
vijay saini
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes
6 of 6
