Tanu Sharma And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6553 P&H

121                          CRWP-6581-2022 (O&M)                              -1-


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                            CRWP-6581-2022 (O&M)
                                            Date of decision: 11.07.2022

Tanu Sharma and another

                                                                    ...Petitioners

                                     Versus

State of Punjab and others

                                                                  ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:-    Mr. Shakti Mehta, Advocate for the petitioners.

             ****

HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL)

This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

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

directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the

petitioners at the hands of respondent Nos. 4 to 6.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1

is major, but petitioner No.2-Harshpreet Singh, though major, is not of

marriageable age. They are living together in live-in relationship. They

would solemnise marriage, after attaining the marriageable age by petitioner

No.2. He further submits that parents of petitioner No. 1 were informed, but

they are issuing threats to the petitioners regarding their live-in relationship.

The petitioners have already submitted a representation dated 06.07.2022

(Annexure P-3) to respondent No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police,

Patiala, for redressal of their grievance.

                                   1 of 3

 121                        CRWP-6581-2022 (O&M)                           -2-

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the

petitioners are living in a constant danger as they have every apprehension

that the private respondents would catch them and carry out their threats

and might go to the extent of even committing their murder. The petitioners

are, therefore, running from pillar to posts for protection of their life and

liberty.

Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment

passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'Nandakumar and Anr.

Vs. The 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 rendered by a Division

Bench of this Court in LPA No.1678-2014, titled as 'Rajwinder Kaur and

another Vs. State of Punjab and others', decided on 09.10.2014.

Notice of motion to the respondents.

On the asking of this Court, Mr. Harbir Sandhu, AAG Punjab,

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

At this stage, Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate, puts in appearance

on behalf of respondents No.4 to 6.

I have heard the 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

2 of 3

121 CRWP-6581-2022 (O&M) -3-

obligations cast upon it to protect the life and liberty of every citizen. Mere

fact that petitioner No.2 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 discussion, I dispose of the present

petition with a direction to respondent No.2-Senior Superintendent of

Police, Patiala, to decide the representation 06.07.2022 (Annexure P-3),

moved by the petitioners in accordance with law and grant protection to

them, if 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.

(HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE 11.07.2022 Mangal Singh Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No

3 of 3