Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rishita And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Others on 4 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101125
CRWP NO. 7674 OF 2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:101125
110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRWP NO. 7674 OF 2023 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : 04.08.2023
Rishita and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present : Petitioners in person.
Mr. Manjot Singh Gujral, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Additional A.G., Haryana.
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
Conflict herein is the enforcement of fundamental rights of the
petitioners to seek protection of their "life and liberty" as enshrined under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India vis-à-vis a conceded violation of
Section 5 (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, inasmuch as a boy aged 20
years 09 months and girl 18 years have got married with each other,
claiming to be in love.
2. Notice of motion to the official respondents, at this stage only,
is being issued. Learned State counsel on service of advance copy of the
petition appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State of
Haryana.
3. Given the nature of the order being passed, there is no necessity
to seek any return by the official respondents or even to serve the private
respondents No.4 to 6.
4. Facts, as pleaded in the petition, succinctly are that family
members of petitioner No.1 were against her wish to marry petitioner No.2.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101125
CRWP NO. 7674 OF 2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:101125
However, petitioners got married on 21.07.2023 according to Hindu Rites.
Photographs of their marriage have been appended with the petition.
Petitioners state that after their marriage, private respondents have issued
threat to eliminate them in order to save their family prestige.
5. In the circumstances, the petitioners approached respondent
No.2 i.e The Commissioner of Police, Panchkulaand submitted a
representation dated 22.07.2023 (Annexure P-5) to safeguard their life and
liberty, but no action is being taken on the same. Hence the present criminal
writ petition.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, as also learned
State counsel. Without going into the merits of legitimacy of the relationship
of the petitioners, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to seek
protection of their life and liberty, even if it were a case of no marriage but
merely a consensual relationship.
7. Both the petitioners are allegedly a run-away couple, despite
one of them not being of marriageable age, claim to have married each other
forced by the circumstances, triggered by the parents of the girl, who wanted
her to forcibly marry another boy of their choice, against her wishes.
8. I am conscious of the fact that the boy is not of marriageable
age. Marriage, assuming that it took place according to Hindu Rites is,
therefore, in violation of Section 5 (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Section
5, ibid envisages statutory pre-requisites for the consenting parties to
solemnize marriage between them. Sub Section (iii) thereof stipulates the
minimum ages of a bridegroom and a bride. However, at the same time,
Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act which declares certain marriages,
which are in contravention of Section 5 (supra), to be void, but precludes a
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101125
CRWP NO. 7674 OF 2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:101125
marriage solemnized in contravention of Sub Section (iii) of Section 5, ibid
from the purview of being regarded as void or invalid.
9. I find support to my above sentiments from a Division Bench
judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in case titled as Jitender Kumar
Sharma Vs. State and Another1.
10. Reverting to the present case, it appears that the petitioners
have not solemnized a valid marriage as per Sub Section (iii) of Section 5 of
the Hindu Marriage Act and may be required to satisfy the validity of their
marriage before an appropriate Forum in the event of same being put to
challenge.
11. The issue in hand, however, is not marriage of the petitioners,
but seeking protection of their life and liberty. They cannot be deprived of
their Fundamental Right under Article 21 of Constitution of India, which
stands on a much higher pedestal. Being sacrosanct under the Constitutional
Scheme it must be protected, regardless of the solemnization of an invalid or
void marriage or even the absence of any marriage between the parties.
12. It is the bounden duty of the State as per the Constitutional
obligations casted upon it to protect the life and liberty of every citizen.
Right to human life is to be treated on much higher pedestal, regardless of a
citizen being minor or a major. Mere fact that the petitioners are not of
marriageable age in the present case would not deprive them of their
fundamental right as envisaged in Constitution of India, being citizens of
India.
13. In the premise, without commenting on the legitimacy of the
relationship between the petitioners, the criminal writ petition is disposed of
2001 (7) AD (Delhi) 785
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101125
CRWP NO. 7674 OF 2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:101125
with a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 i.e., Commissioner of Police,
Panchkula and Station House Officer, Sector 20, Panchkula, Haryana, to
verify the contents of the petition, particularly the threat perception of the
petitioners and complaints/representation (Annexure P-5) and if deemed fit,
to take appropriate steps to provide necessary protection qua their life and
liberty in accordance with law.
14. It is clarified that this order shall neither be treated as a stamp
of this Court qua marriage of the petitioners nor any reflection on the merits
of the contentions raised by them in the present petition.
15. The criminal writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA)
04.08.2023 JUDGE
vandana
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101125
4 of 4
