Punjab-Haryana High Court
Geeta Devi And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
SR. No.113
CRWP-2024-2022
Date of Decision:08.03.2022
Geeta Devi and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANT PARKASH
Present: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
SANT PARKASH, J.
The petitioners, who are of the age of 25 and 21 years
respectively as per their Aadhar Cards, have approached this Court seeking
protection of their life and liberty on the averments that they are living
together in a live-in relationship against the wishes of respondents No.4 to
7 and the petitioners are apprehending threat to their life and liberty at their
instance.
It is averred in the petition that it is first marriage of petitioner
No.2, whereas petitioner No.1 is already married with respondent No.5 and
now they are living together in a live-in relationship. It is further averred in
the petition that family members of both the petitioners including husband
of petitioner No.1 are against the said live-in relationship of the petitioners
and are threatening to kill them by tracing them from anywhere.
Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon a
Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in LPA No.1678 of 2014
titled as "Rajwinder Kaur and another Vs State of Punjab and others,
1 of 3
2014 (4) RCR (Criminal) 785" to support his claim.
He further submits that a representation dated 25.02.2022 (P-3)
was made to the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra, seeking necessary
protection but no action has been taken so far in the matter and prays for
issuance of direction in this regard.
Notice of motion restricted to respondents No.1 to 3 only at this
stage.
Mr. Amreek Singh Narwal, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on
behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. Copy of the paper book has already been
supplied to learned State counsel by the Registry.
I have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance
have gone through the pleadings of the case.
The petitioners have approached this court under Article 226 of
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 their decision to reside together.
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). Moreover, it is the fundamental right of the parties to seek
2 of 3
protection from the Court and it is the duty of the Court to protect the life
and liberty of the petitioners. Reference in this regard can be made in
Rajwinder Kaur's case (supra) as well as Single Bench judgment rendered
in CRWP No.4533 of 2021, titled as "Soniya and another vs. State of
Haryana and others", 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.
Without commenting upon the legality of the relationship of the
petitioners as well as 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-Superintendent of Police,
Kurukshetra 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 protect the petitioners
from legal action for violation of law, if any committed by them.
Registry is directed to send a copy of this order along with copy
of the petition and above said representation to respondent No.2-
Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra, for requisite compliance.
08.03.2022 (SANT PARKASH)
mks JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES / NO
Whether Reportable: YES / NO
3 of 3
