Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhumi And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 29 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
135
CRWP-7248-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 29.07.2022
BHUMI AND ANOTHER
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Present : Mr. Amit Khari, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Amarjit Kaur Khurana, DAG Punjab.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. J. (ORAL)
CRWP- 949-2022
The instant application has been filed under Rule 3-A (1) Chapter VI,
Part-B, Vol. V of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders for grant
of leave to file the present petition.
Application is allowed as prayed for.
CRWP-7248-2022
The instant criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India for issuance of directions to the officials respondents
No.2 and 3 to initiate action on the representation dated 22.07.2022 (Annexures
P-3) submitted to the official respondents No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police
Moga for protecting of the life and liberty of the petitioners and with a further
direction that the private respondents should not interfere in the personal life of
the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended
1 of 3
CRWP-7248-2022 (O&M) -2 -
that the petitioner No.1 is a minor and she wishes to marry petitioner No.2 of her
own accord after attaining the age of majority. It has been alleged that currently
the petitioner No.1 is residing with the petitioner No.2-Veeru Raj and both the
petitioners are running from pillar to post to save their lives from the hands of
respondent Nos.4 to 5. It is further submitted that the petitioners have not been
married to any other person earlier.
3. Reference can be made to certain orders/judgements of this Court
passed in CRWP-2238-2021 titled as Priyanka & Another Vs. State of Haryana &
Ors decided on 05.03.2021, wherein the minor who was in a live-in-relationship
was extended an indulgence; a similar order had been passed in CRWP-6660-2020
titled as Jyoti Vs. State of Haryana & Ors decided on 01.09.2020; CRWP-3990-
2020 titled as Roopa Vs. State of Haryana & Ors decided on 22.06.2020; CRWP-
1525-2020 titled as Sarabjeet Kaur & Another Vs. State of Punjab & Ors decided
on 12.02.2020; CRWP-29048-2019 titled as Navpreet Kaur & Another Vs. State
of Punjab & Ors decided on 04.10.2019. A reference can also be made to the
judgement of this Court reported as 2019(4) RCR (Civil) 183 titled as Jashanpreet
Kaur & Another Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.
4. The gist of the aforesaid orders/judgements was to the effect that
merely because the petitioners are not of marriageable age, it would not deprive
them of their fundamental right to seek protection of their lives and liberties. The
Court examined the issue in the context of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and held
that merely because the petitioners are not of the marriageable age and the
marriage performed, if any, would be hit by Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage
Act 1955, the same being only a civil consequence qua the validity of the
marriage, their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be
2 of 3
CRWP-7248-2022 (O&M) -3 -
denied as they stand on a much higher pedestal. Life and liberty of the persons is
sacrosanct being integral to their being, it ought to be protected regardless of
solemnization of invalid or void marriage or even in the absence of any marriage
amongst the parties. In all the said matters, the respective SSPs/SPs were directed
to verify the threat perception and to take necessary steps to provide protection to
the life and liberty of the petitioners, if deemed fit and necessary.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the
documents appended by them with the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the dispute in present case would be covered by the judgment
of this Court decided on 28.03.2022 in CRWP No. 2139-2022 (O&M) titled as
P.....Minor through Vikram Versus State of Haryana and others" and that he would
be satisfied if the present petition is disposed of in terms of the said judgment.
6. The said prayer is not objected by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of State of Punjab.
7. The present petition is thus disposed of in terms of the judgment
passed in CRWP No. 2139-2022 (O&M) titled as "P.....Minor through Vikram
Versus State of Haryana and others" with the consent of both the parties.
The petition is disposed of.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
JUDGE
JULY 29, 2022
VISHAL SHARMA
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
