Punjab-Haryana High Court
Navya And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 14 October, 2021
CRWP-9862-2021 (O&M) -1-
116
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRWP-9862-2021 (O&M)
Date of decision : 14.10.2021
Navya and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Manvinder Singh Bal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Saurav Khurana, DAG, Punjab.
(Through Video Conferencing)
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
The present Criminal Writ Petition has been filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India for directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to
protect the life and liberty of the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner
No.1 is more than 18 years of age and her date of birth is 01.10.2003 which
is apparent from her Aadhaar Card (Annexure P-1). Petitioner No.2 was
born on 04.01.2001 as is apparent from his Aadhaar Card (Annexure P-2). It
is, thus, apparent that petitioner No.2 is although major but is not of
marriageable age. It is further contended that the petitioners have performed
marriage on 07.10.2021 and for the said purpose, photographs have been
1 of 4
CRWP-9862-2021 (O&M) -2-
annexed alongwith the present petition as Annexure P-3. It is also submitted
that the petitioners have given a detailed representation dated 07.10.2021
(Annexure P-4) to respondent No.2 as they are apprehending harm to their
life and liberty and have, thus, sought protection.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the
judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case Jashanpreet
Kaur and another Vs. State of Punjab and others, reported as 2019(4)
RCR (Civil) 183, in which case although, girl therein was aged about 15
years and 8 months and boy was aged about 19 years and 3 months, yet the
Coordinate Bench after considering the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, was pleased to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners therein.
The relevant portions of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"1 to 5 xxx xxx
6. Facts, as pleaded in the petition, succinctly are that
the petitioner No.1, a minor girl born on 04.10.2003 and
petitioner No.2, a boy born on 10.03.2000, though a major,
but not of marriageable age, purportedly are in love with
each other and got married on 17.06.2019 at Panchkula
according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. Photographs of
their marriage have been appended with the petition.
7 to 16. xxx xxx
17. The issue in hand, however, is not marriage of the
petitioners, but the deprivation of fundamental right of
seeking protection of life and liberty. I have no hesitation to
hold that Constitutional Fundamental Right under Article 21
of Constitution of India stands on a much higher pedestal.
Being sacrosanct under the Constitutional Scheme it must be
protected, regardless of the solemnization of an invalid or
void marriage or even the absence of any marriage between
2 of 4
CRWP-9862-2021 (O&M) -3-
the parties.
18. It is the bounden duty of the State as per the
Constitutional obligations casted upon it to protect the life
and liberty of every citizen. Right to human life is to be
treated on much higher pedestal, regardless of a citizen
being minor or a major. The mere fact that the petitioners
are not of marriageable age would not deprive them of their
fundamental right as envisaged in Constitution of India,
being citizens of India.
19. In view of the discussion above, the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Batala is directed to verify the
contents of the petition particularly the threat perception of
the petitioners and thereafter provide necessary protection
qua their life and liberty, if deemed fit.
20. It is clarified that this order shall neither be treated as
a stamp of this Court qua marriage of the petitioners nor
any reflection on the merits of the contentions raised by
them in the present petition.
21. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. "
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
petitioners would be satisfied in case respondent No.2-Deputy
Commissioner of Police is directed to look into representation dated
07.10.2021 (Annexure P-4) and after seeing threat perception to the
petitioners, takes appropriate action in accordance with law.
Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 to 3 only.
On advance notice, Mr. Saurav Khurana, DAG, Punjab, appears
and accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and has stated that he
has no objection in case, respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner of Police,
looks into the representation dated 07.10.2021 (Annexure P-4) and takes
3 of 4
CRWP-9862-2021 (O&M) -4-
appropriate action in accordance with law.
After considering the abovesaid facts and without commenting
upon the legality of the marriage and 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 07.10.2021 (Annexure
P-4) and after considering the threat perception to the petitioners,
respondent No.2 will 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 other case.
14.10.2021 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
4 of 4
