Punjab-Haryana High Court
Reena And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 9 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
104
CRWP-1214-2023
Decided on : 09.02.2023
Reena and another
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
. . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. Lovedeep Saini, Advocate for
Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioners.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
By way of filing this petition, petitioners seek necessary
protection of their lives and personal liberty in view of the fact that they have
not solemnized their marriage so far and are living in a live-in relationship,
and are under eminent threat at the hands of respondents No.4 to 6.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier petitioner
No.1-Reena had solemnized marriage in March, 2016 with one Mukesh s/o
Jiya lal r/o village Mundri, Tehsil and District Kaithal. No child was born out
of the said wedlock and marriage was dissolved by way of decree dated
16.09.2020 passed in HMA petition No.78 dated 03.02.2020 by the Court of
Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaithal. Judgment and Decree of mutual
divorce is also attached with the petition. (Annexure P-4).
Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that petitioners
are in a live-in relationship against the wishes of respondent No. 4 to 6, and
have sought protection of their lives and liberty. It is submitted that
petitioner No. 1-Reena, is aged 27 years and petitioner No. 2 - Bhim Singh,
is aged 44 years and they apprehend danger at the hands of private
KAVITA NAIN
2023.02.09 16:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
order/judgment
respondents No.4 to 6, who will eliminate them, if they intend to solemnize
the marriage at relevant time.
In the context of threat perception at the hands of private
respondents No.4 to 6, petitioners have allegedly moved representation dated
04.02.2023 (Annexure P-5) to the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal,
(respondent No.2), wherein, all the apprehensions qua their lives and liberty
has been expressed.
Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 3.
On advance notice, Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana, puts in
appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3.
Since petitioners have not contracted any marriage and seek only
protection qua their lives and personal liberty, and for the same already
representation dated 04.02.2023 (Annexure P-5) is pending, it would be
appropriate to direct respondent No. 2 to have a fair look to the said
representation, 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 the
innocence of the petitioners are established, then respondent No.2 shall
proceed to take appropriate action in order to protect lives and personal
liberty of the petitioners from being invaded by private respondents No.4 to
However, factum of mutual divorce as got recorded hereinabove
by petitioner No.1-Reena, would also be confirmed.
The aforesaid order is being passed at this stage without
meaning anything on the status of the parties on the basis of live-in
KAVITA NAIN
2023.02.09 16:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
order/judgment
relationship and age of petitioners. Respondent No.2 would consider and
pass necessary order without being influenced by any statement of fact
recorded hereinabove.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
February 09, 2023
kavita nain
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
KAVITA NAIN
2023.02.09 16:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
order/judgment
