Punjab-Haryana High Court
Monika Rani And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Others on 11 November, 2022
CRWP-10643-2022 1
117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRWP-10643-2022
Date of Decision: November 11, 2022
Monika Rani and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. R. S. Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioners.
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
By way of filing this petition, the petitioners seek necessary
protection of their lives and personal liberty in view of the fact that they are
in a live-in relationship and are under eminent threats at the hands of
respondents No. 4 to 7. Petitioner No.1 - Monika Rani is aged about 26
years, whereas, petitioner No. 2 - Sajjan Kumar is aged about 31 years.
In the context of threat perception at the hands of private
respondents No. 4 to 7, petitioners have allegedly moved representation
dated 30.10.2022, (Annexure P-3) to Senior Superintendent of Police, SBS
Nagar (respondent No. 2), wherein, all the apprehension to their lives has
been expressed.
It is averred in the petition that Petitioner No. 1-Monika Rani is
stated to be previously married to Sandeep Kumar (respondent No. 4) and
out of said wedlock, one daughter was born. Thereafter, respondent No. 4
left to Pourtgale living his wife-petitioner No. 1 and her daughter in lurks.
After that petitioner No. 1 came in the contact of petitioner No. 2 and both
1 of 3
of them have started liking each other and started living in a Live-in
Relationship.
While making submission, learned counsel for the petitioners
relies upon the judgment dated 18.07.2022 passed by co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in CRWP No. 4644 of 2021 (Ashok Kumar and anr. v. State of
Punjab and others).
In the said case also, direction to look into the representation
already submitted by the parties, was passed after considering the basic
feature of the Constitution of India as per which every citizen has a right to
live his/her life with a person of his/her choice emanating out of Article 21.
Notice of motion.
On asking of the Court, Mr. J .S. Arora, DAG, Punjab, who is
present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3
(State).
Since petitioners have not contracted any marriage and seek
only protection qua their lives and personal liberty, it would be appropriate
to direct respondent No. 2 to have a fair look on the grievance of the
petitioners in order to ascertain veracity of allegations made by them.
Respondent No. 2 would be at liberty to devise his/her own
mechanism to ascertain the truth. He/she would also be at liberty to join the
petitioners or any other person acquainted with facts in issue. If innocence of
the petitioners is established, then respondent No. 2 shall proceed to take
appropriate action in order to protect their lives and personal liberty from
being invaded by private respondents No. 4 to 7.
2 of 3
This order is passed at this stage without meaning anything on
the status of the petitioners on the basis of live-in relationship. Respondent
No. 2 would pass necessary order without being influenced by any statement
of fact recorded here-in-above.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
November 11, 2022
Riya Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
3 of 3
