Punjab-Haryana High Court
Reena And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 4 July, 2023
CRWP No.5694 of 2023 1 2023:PHHC:083592
212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP No. 5694 of 2023
Date of Decision: 04.07.2023
Reena and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Prikshit Thakur, Advocate for
Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Fearing for their lives and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, the
petitioners, who claim to be in a live-in-relationship, despite the female being
previously married and such marriage in subsistence, have come up before this Court
seeking protection through the State, by invoking their fundamental rights of life
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to the State
to protect them.
2. Notices served upon the official respondents through the State's counsel. Given
the nature of the order that this Court proposes to pass, neither the response of official
respondents nor the issuance of notices to the private respondents is required.
3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1 had married Avinash
Chander on 07.06.2013 and they have two children from this wedlock and they are
residing with their father. They have filed a petition under Section 13-B for dissolution
of marriage with mutual consent and statements of both the parties had been recorded
on 29.05.2023. He further submits that petitioner No. 2 is well settled and an interior
designer and doing his work very respectfully.
4. The times are changing fast, even in those lands that were left behind and stuck
with the old ethos and conservative social milieu. We are governed by the rule of law
and follow the Constitutional dharma. In the ever-evolving society, evolving the law
with it, the time is to shift perspective from didactics of the orthodox society, shackled
with the strong strings of morality supported by religions to one that values an
individual's life above all. Every person in the territory of India has an inherent and
indefeasible fundamental right to life flowing from Article 21 of India's constitution and
JYOTI
2023.07.05 14:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
CRWP No.5694 of 2023 2 2023:PHHC:083592
the State is duty bound to protect life.
5. In Mohd Arif @ Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, (2014) 9 SCC 737, the
Constitutional bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,
[17]. As the determination of this case has to do with the
fundamental right to life, which, among all fundamental rights, is the
most precious to all human beings, we need to delve into Article 21
which reads as follows:
"21. Protection of life and personal liberty.-No person
shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law."
[18]. This Article has its origin in nothing less than the Magna Carta,
(the 39th Article) of 1215 vintage which King John of England was
forced to sign by his Barons. It is a little known fact that this original
charter of liberty was faulted at the very start and did not get off the
ground because of a Papal Bull issued by Pope Innocent the third
declaring this charter to be void. Strangely, like Magna Carta, Art. 21
did not get off the ground for 28 years after which, unshackled, it has
become the single most important fundamental right under the
Constitution of India, being described as one of a holy trinity
consisting of a 'golden triangle' (see Minerva Mills v. Union of India,
1981 1 SCR 206 at 263), and being one of two articles which cannot
be eclipsed during an emergency (Article 359 as amended by the
Constitution 44th Amendment).
6. If the allegations of apprehension of threat to their lives turn out to be true, it
might lead to an irreversible loss. This Court is not adjudicating on the validity of
petitioners' marriage but adhering to its fundamental duty of guarding their lives. Thus,
in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, it shall be appropriate that the
concerned Superintendent of Police, SHO, or any officer to whom such powers have
been delegated or have been authorized in this regard, provide appropriate protection
to the petitioners for one week from today. However, if the petitioners no longer
require the protection, then at their request it may be discontinued even before the
expiry of one week. After that, the concerned officers shall extend the protection on
day-to-day analysis of the ground realities or upon the oral or written request of the
petitioners.
7. This protection is subject to the stringent condition that from the time such
protection is given, the petitioners shall not go outside the boundaries of the place of
their residence, except for medical necessities, to buy household necessities, and for
bereavements in the families of the persons who are close to them. However,
petitioner(s) shall be at liberty to shift the residence(s) and if the new place falls with
the district, then the protection shall be extended to such place. This restriction saves
the petitioners from apprehended risk and ensures that the protection is not flaunted.
JYOTI
2023.07.05 14:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
CRWP No.5694 of 2023 3 2023:PHHC:083592
8. It is clarified that there is no adjudication on merits and that this order is not a
blanket bail in any FIR. It is further clarified that this order shall not come in the way if
the interrogation of the petitioners is required in any cognizable case. It shall also be
open for the petitioner(s) to approach this Court again in case of any fresh threat
perception.
9. This order shall eclipse after thirty days from today.
10. There would be no need for a certified copy of this order, and any Advocate for the
Petitioner and State can download this order and other relevant particulars from the
official web page of this court and attest it to be a true copy. The concerned officer can
also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for
immediate use.
Petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
stand disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
04.07.2023
Jyoti-II
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
JYOTI
2023.07.05 14:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
