Punjab-Haryana High Court
Moniya And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Others on 28 June, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080706
CRWP-6103-2024 :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
117 CRWP-6103-2024
Date of Decision: 28.06.2024
MONIYA AND ANR
... Petitioners
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE
Present: Mr. Mohit Kakkar, Advocate
for the petitioner. (through Video Conferencing)
Ms. Safia Gupta, AAG, Haryana.
*****
RITU TAGORE, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus for directing respondents No.1 to 3 to protect life and
liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondents No.4 and 5.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the
petitioners are in live-in-relationship since 26.06.2024. Copies of
Aadhaar card of both the petitioners are attached as Annexures P-1
and P-2.
3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that aforesaid private
respondents No.4 and 5 have threatened to cause harm to both the
petitioners and in this regard, representation dated 26.06.2024
(Annexure P-3) has been given to the Superintendent of Police,
Charkhi Dadri, Haryana and SHO, Police Station Badhra but till date
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080706
CRWP-6103-2024 :2:
no action has been taken by the concerned authority in this regard.
4. Learned State counsel on instructions submits that on the
representation dated 26.06.2024 (Annexure P-3), the SHO, Police
Station Badhra had met the father of petitioner No.2, who informed
that petitioners are not residing with him and he is not having any
knowledge about the whereabouts of the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the petitioners are on the run due to apprehension of a
threat to their life and liberty.
6. Copies of Aadhaar card of both the petitioners are
attached as Annexures P-1 and P-2 relied upon by the petitioners as
proof of their age, prima facie suggest that both the petitioners are
major and petitioner No.2 has not attained the marriageable age.
7. Herein, the petitioners, have taken a decision to reside
together without the sanctity of marriage and it is not for the Courts to
judge them on their decision. In S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal,
(2010) 5 SCC 600, it has been held that live-in-relationship is
permissible and the act of two adults living together cannot
considered illegal or unlawful, while further holding that the issue of
morality and criminality are not co-extensive. Further in a judgment
of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India Nandakumar and another Vs.
State of Kerala and others, 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 899, it has been
held that, "we need not go into this aspect in detail. For our purposes,
it is sufficient to note that both appellant No.1 and Thushara are
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080706
CRWP-6103-2024 :3:
major. Even if they were not competent to enter into wedlock (which
position itself is disputed), they have right to live together even
outside wedlock. It would not be out of place to mention that 'live-in
relationship' is now recognized by the Legislature itself which has
found its place under the provisions of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005".
8. If the given allegations of threat to the lives of
petitioners turn out to be true, it might lead to an irreversible loss. In
view of above, without going into the merits of the case and
expressing any opinion as to the sanctity of their live-in-relationship
because the safety of the petitioners is the the foremost concern at this
stage, this petition is hereby disposed of with direction to respondent
No.2-Superintendent of Police, Charkhi Dadri, Haryana to consider
representation dated 26.06.2024 (Annexure P-3) and to take remedial
measures to protect life and liberty of petitioners if so warranted, in
accordance with law.
9. It is further made clear that if the petitioners are
otherwise found to be involved in any other case, in such an
eventuality, this order shall not preclude the competent authority from
taking appropriate action against the petitioners, that law permits.
(RITU TAGORE)
JUDGE
28.06.2024
Rimpal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
