Shaweta Kumari And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 15002 P&H

                      CRWP-8710-2023 (O&M)                                   2023:PHHC:115579



                      Sr. No. 132
                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                             CHANDIGARH
                                                            CRWP-8710-2023 (O&M)
                                                          Date of Decision: 04.09.2023

                      Shaweta Kumari and another                      ...Petitioners
                                                             Vs.
                      State of Punjab and others                      ...Respondents

                      CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

                      Present:     Mr.Rahul Garg, Advocate,
                                   For the petitioners.

                              Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Additional A.G., Punjab.
                                         ***
                      ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

Petition herein, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of

mandamus directing the respondents to protect the life and liberty of petitioners

as they apprehend threat at the hands of private respondents No.4 to 11.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners want

to marry each other. However, parents/relatives of petitioner No.1 i.e.

respondents No.4 to 9 forcibly want to marry her with a boy in other

community.

3. Notice of motion.

4. On advance service of copy of the petition, learned State counsel

appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State of Punjab.

5. Given the nature of 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 11.

6. Facts, as pleaded in the petition, succinctly are that petitioner

No.1 born on 01.01.2002 and petitioner No.2, born on 23.01.2004 (a major boy

but of non-marriageable age of 19 years and 07 months), are purportedly in

VANDANA 2023.09.04 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-8710-2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:115579

love with each other. They have been living together in relationship for last

twenty days.

7. Petitioners have decided to get married when petitioner No.2

attained the marriageable age and approached their parents, but parents of

petitioner No.1 were against their marriage. Ever since they started staying

together in a live-in relationship, private respondents No.4 to 11 have been

threatening them with dire consequences. Apprehension is that parents may

even will kill both petitioners by tracing them from wherever they are.

8. In the circumstances, the petitioners approached respondent No.2

(Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur) and submitted a representation

dated 28.08.2023 (Annexure P-3) seeking to safeguard their life and liberty, but

no action is being taken on the same. Hence, the instant petition.

9. The petitioners state that they are living in constant danger as they

have every apprehension that private respondents will catch them and carry out

their threats and may go to the extent of even committing their murder. The

petitioners are, therefore, running here and there and unable to find any safe

place to live in the absence of protection of their life and liberty. Hence the

present writ petition seeking appropriate directions to the official respondents

to provide protection qua their life and liberty.

10. Controversy that needs adjudication now thus is whether an

appropriate writ/direction or order is warranted to allay the apprehensions of

the petitioners for granting protection to them for enforcement of their

fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The issue in

hand, however, is not marriage of the petitioners, but the deprivation of

fundamental right of seeking protection of life and liberty. I have no hesitation

to hold that Constitutional Fundamental Right under Article 21 of Constitution

of India stands on a much higher pedestal. Being sacrosanct under the VANDANA 2023.09.04 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-8710-2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:115579

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.

11. 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 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.

12. Reference may be had, in the aforesaid context, to a judgment

rendered in CRWP No. 4725 of 2021 titled "Seema Kaur and another v.

State of Punjab and others", wherein, speaking for this court, Sant Parkash, J.

(as he then was in this Court) , opined as under :-

"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). Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Rajwinder Kaur and another Versus State of Punjab, 2014 (4) RCR (Criminal) 785 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. Similar views have been taken by the Coordinate Benches in the case of Rajveer Kaur Versus State of Punjab, 2019 (3) RCR (Civil) 478 and in Priyapreet Kaur Versus State of Punjab, 2021 (1) RCR (Civil) 604 amongst others. Different High Courts too have allowed protection to runaway couples who are not married. Again reference can be made to a recent judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court in Kamini Devi vs. State of UP,2021(1) RCR (Civil) 421 and in Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396.

The concept of a live in relationship may not be acceptable to all, but it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal one or that living together without the sanctity of marriage constitutes an offence. Even under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a woman who is in a 'domestic relationship' has been provided protection, maintenance etc. It is interesting to note that the word 'wife' has not been used under the said Act. Thus, the female live-in-partners and the children of live-in couples have been accorded adequate protection by the Parliament.

VANDANA 2023.09.04 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-8710-2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:115579

Article 21 as enshrined in the Constitution of India provides for its citizen to a right to life and personal liberty, with a stipulation that they shall not be deprived of it except according to a procedure established by law. In the case of Shakti Vahini Versus Union of India and others, 2018 (5) R.C.R (Criminal) 981, the Supreme court has held "The right to exercise Assertion of choice is an insegregable facet of liberty and dignity. That is why the French philosopher and thinker, Simone Weil, has said:-"Liberty, taking the word in its concrete sense consists in the ability to choose." At this stage, one cannot also lose sight of honour killings which are prevalent in northern parts of India, particularly in parts of States of Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. Honour killing is a result of people marrying without their family's acceptance, and sometimes for marrying outside their caste or religion. Once an individual, who is a major, has chosen his/her partner, it is not for any other person, be it a family member, to object and cause a hindrance to their peaceful existence. It is for the State at this juncture, to ensure their protection and their personal liberty. It would be a travesty of justice in case protection is denied to persons who have opted to reside together without the sanctity of marriage and such persons have to face dire consequences at the hands of persons from whom protection is sought. In case such a course is adopted and protection denied, the courts would also be failing in their duty to provide its citizens a right to their life and liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and to uphold to the Rule of law".

I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed in the judgement

ibid.

13. As an upshot, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur is

directed to verify the contents of the petition, particularly the threat perception

of the petitioners, and thereafter, provide necessary protection qua their life and

liberty, if deemed fit.

                                                                                   (ARUN MONGA)
                                                                                       JUDGE
                      04.09.2023
                      vandana


                      Whether speaking/reasoned:                 Yes/No
                      Whether reportable:                        Yes/No




VANDANA
2023.09.04 14:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document