Urmila And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1608 P&H

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH
SR. No.108

                                            CRWP-2262-2022
                                    Date of Decision:14.03.2022
Urmila and another

                                                                 ...Petitioners
                                   Versus
State of Punjab and others
                                                                ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANT PARKASH

Present:    Mr. R.S. Dhillon, Advocate,
            for the petitioners.

SANT PARKASH, J.

The petitioners, who are of the age of 22 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 9

and the petitioners are apprehending threat to their life and liberty at their

instance.

It is averred in the petition that the petitioner No.1 is earlier

married to respondent No.4. It is further averred that as the said marriage is

against her wishes, petitioner No.1 started living with petitioner No.2 in

live-in relationship, which is being opposed by respondent No.4 (husband

petitioner No.1) and her family members, i.e. respondents No.5 to 9. The

petitioners apprehend that the private respondents would cause harm to

them.

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 submits that a

representation dated was made to the Senior Superintendent of Police,

Ferozepur, 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. Tanvir Joshi, AAG, Punjab, 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

protection from the Court and it is the duty of the Court to protect the life

2 of 3

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 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-Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur 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 No2-Senior

Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, for requisite compliance.

14.03.2022                                           (SANT PARKASH)
mks                                                      JUDGE

                    Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES / NO
                    Whether Reportable:              YES / NO




                                       3 of 3