Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 19 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052522
2024:PHHC:052522
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
112 CRWP-3411-2024
Date of Decision : April 19, 2024
RAJ KUMAR AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Ms. Sunita Devi Spehia, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, D.A.G., Punjab.
***
KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)
1. Through the instant petition, the petitioners, a
quinquagenarian couple, seeks issuance of a mandamus upon the
respondents No.2 and 3, to ensure protection of their lives and liberty at
the hands of respondents No.4 and 5, and, also to restrain the said
respondents from interfering in their peaceful married life.
2. What surfaces from a scrutiny of the instant petition, is that,
prior to solemnizing marriage with the petitioner No.2, the petitioner No.1
was married to one Surinder Kaur, whose demise had unfortunately
occurred on 25.07.2009. After demise of his spouse, the petitioner No.1
had, on 11.04.2024, solemnized marriage with the petitioner No.2, who is
stated to be unmarried at that time. Moreover, the petitioners are stated to
be working in a private factory at Jalandhar, wherefrom they are earning
sufficiently to maintain themselves and to fulfill their nuptial obligations
towards each other.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052522
CRWP-3411-2024 2 2024:PHHC:052522
3. The principal cause behind the petitioners being driven to
this Court for seeking issuance of the mandamus (supra), is that, their
marriage has caused grievance to the respondents no.4 and 5 and such
grievance has made them apprehensive of danger to their lives and liberty.
Before rushing to this Court, the petitioners had even made a
representation dated 11.04.2024 (Annexure P-8) before the respondent
No.2, however, the same has purportedly remained unactioned.
4. This Court is unable to comprehend as to how two mature,
responsible and consenting adults, who have decided to spend their lives
together, and that too after legally solemnizing marriage, are not allowed
to live a peaceful life as per their own wishes. To marry a person of one's
own choice, is the fundamental right of every citizen. No one is bestowed
with any right or authority to interfere in the marriage preferences of
independent adults. Had the authority(ies) concerned, which was seized of
petitioners' representation (supra), handled the matter with due care and
circumspection, the petitioners would not have been constrained to
approach this Court.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in its judgment rendered in
"Laxmibai Chandaragi B & Anr. V/s The State of Karnataka & Ors.",
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.359/2020, Decided on: 08.02.2021, held in
unambiguous terms that consent of family, community or clan is not
necessary once two adult individuals agree to enter into a wedlock. The
relevant paragraph of this judgment is extracted hereinafter:-
"10. We are fortified in our view by earlier judicial
pronouncements of this Court clearly elucidating that the consent
of the family or the community or the clan is not necessary once
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052522
CRWP-3411-2024 3 2024:PHHC:052522
the two adult individuals agree to enter into a wedlock and that
their consent has to be piously given primacy. It is in that context
it was further observed that the choice of an individual is an
inextricable part of dignity, for dignity cannot be thought of
where there is erosion of choice. Such a right or choice is not is
not expected to succumb to the concept of "class honour" or
"group thinking."
6. The High Court of Delhi, speaking through Justice Saurabh
Banerjee, in W.P. (CRL) 3045/2023, Decided on: 17.10.2023, has also
observed that the right to marry is an incident of human liberty. The
relevant paragraphs of this judgment are extracted hereinafter:-
"5. The right to marry is an incident of human liberty. The right
to marry a person of one's choice is not only underscored in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but is also an integral
facet of Article 21 of The Constitution of India, which guarantees
the right to life.
7. When the parties herein are two consenting adults who have
chosen to willingly agree to join hands by way of marriage, there
can hardly be any impediment on the way, be it from the parents/
relatives or the Society at large or the State. There is nothing left
for anybody to interfere in the lives of the parties herein..."
7. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in its judgment
titled as "Shakti Vahini V/s Union of India and Others", Writ Petition
(Civil) No.231 of 2010, Decided on: 27.03.2018, issued certain guidelines
for ensuring protection of couples who marry against the wishes of their
families or clan, and, also observed as under:-
"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."
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052522
CRWP-3411-2024 4 2024:PHHC:052522
When the ability to choose is crushed in the name of class
honour and the person's physical frame is treated with absolute
indignity, a chilling effect dominates over the brains and bones of
the society at large. The question that poignantly emanates for
consideration is whether the elders of the family or clan can ever
be allowed to proclaim a verdict guided by some notion of
passion and eliminate the life of the young who have exercised
their choice to get married against the wishes of their elders or
contrary to the customary practice of the clan. The answer has to
be an emphatic "No". It is because the sea of liberty and the
ingrained sense of dignity do not countenance such treatment
inasmuch as the pattern of behaviour is based on some extra-
constitutional perception. Class honour, howsoever perceived,
cannot smother the choice of an individual which he or she is
entitled to enjoy under our compassionate Constitution. And this
right of enjoyment of liberty deserves to be continually and
zealously guarded so that it can thrive with strength and flourish
with resplendence. It is also necessary to state here that the old
order has to give way to the new. Feudal perception has to melt
into oblivion paving the smooth path for liberty. That is how the
statement of Joseph J. Ellis becomes relevant. He has
propounded:-
"We don't live in a world in which there exists a
single definition of honour anymore, and it's a fool
that hangs on to the traditional standards and hopes
that the world will come around him."
2. Presently, to the factual score. The instant Writ Petition
has been preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
seeking directions to the respondents- State Governments and the
Central Government to take preventive steps to combat honour
crimes, to submit a National Plan of Action and State Plan of
Action to curb crimes of the said nature and further to direct the
State Governments to constitute special cells in each district
which can be approached by the couples for their safety and well
being. That apart, prayers have been made to issue a writ of
mandamus to the State Governments to launch prosecutions in
each case of honour killing and take appropriate measures so that
such honour crimes and embedded evil in the mindset of certain
members of the society are dealt with iron hands."
8. Astonishingly, despite issuance of detailed guidelines, in
numerous judgments, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High
Courts, the petitioners have to approach this Court for issuance of a
mandamus upon the authority concerned to act upon their representation.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052522
CRWP-3411-2024 5 2024:PHHC:052522
9. Since the only issue which requires adjudication herein, at
this stage, is the representation of the petitioners remaining unactioned,
inasmuch as, no decision has been taken thereon, therefore, without
issuing notice to the private respondents at this stage, notice is issued only
to the official respondent(s).
10. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, D.A.G.,
Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the official respondent(s).
11. Without entering upon an exercise to evaluate the evidentiary
value of the documents placed on the file, the instant petition is disposed
of with a direction to the respondent no.2 - Commissioner of Police,
Jalandhar, to decide the representation (Annexure P-8) of the petitioners
and grant them protection, if any threat to their lives and liberty is
perceived. The respondent No.2 is directed to take appropriate measures
for ensuring that no harm is caused to the petitioners. However, this order
shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion whatsoever by this
Court on the validity of the marriage of the petitioners.
12. Disposed of accordingly.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
April 19, 2024 JUDGE
devinder
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
