Disposed

Vinita @ Beena and Another v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Jan 2011CRM-M/1695/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., directed the Commissioner of Police, Faridabad, to investigate allegations of threats against petitioners, who are minors in an opposing marriage. The Court emphasized the Supreme Court's view that in inter-caste/religion marriages, satisfaction that the girl is a major and her wishes are paramount. The order did not confirm the marriage's validity substantive

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent, Commissioner of Police, Faridabad, to investigate allegations and ensure protection/arrest prevention for petitioners.

Vinita @ Beena and Another Vs State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-1695 of 2011 (O&M) (1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Crl. Misc. No. M-1695 of 2011 (O&M)

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 21.01.2011

¶5

Vinita @ Beena and another

¶6

..........Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana and others

¶9

..........Respondents

¶10

BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶11

Present:Mr. YD Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

¶13

DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.

¶14

Crl. Misc. No. 3551 of 2011

¶15

This is an application for placing on record copy of voter identity card of petitioner No.2 as Annexure P-5.

¶16

Application is allowed and copy of voter identity card of petitioner No.2 is taken on record as Annexure P-5.

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. 3126 of 2011

¶18

Application is allowed as prayed for.

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M-1695 of 2011

¶20

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of directions to the official respondents to provide adequate security to protect lives and liberty of the petitioners who apprehend threats to their lives at the hands of private respondents and for further direction not to harass and interfere in their peaceful married life and not to intrude into their privacy.

¶21

The petitioners, who are present in Court, claim to be major on

¶22

(2)

¶23

Crl. Misc. No. M-1695 of 2011 (O&M)

¶24

the basis of documents annexed with the petition and they got married contrary to the wishes of their parents and are apprehending threats to their lives and liberty.

¶25

Even though this Court is disinclined to entertain and to go into such allegations, but at the same time it cannot be oblivious to the fact that because of social friction and sectarian differences such incidents are not entirely unheard of and prima facie the case also appears to be covered by the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fiaz Ahmed Ahanger and others Vs. State of J&K 2009 (3) R.A.J. 692, which are as under:-

¶26

“In such cases of inter-caste or inter religion marriage the Court has only to be satisfied about two things:-

¶27

(1)that the girl is above 18 years of age, in which case, the law regards her as a major vide Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875. A major is deemed by the law to know what is in his or her welfare.

¶28

(2)The wish of the girl.

¶29

In the circumstances, we direct that nobody will harass, threaten or commit any acts of violence or other unlawful act on the petitioner, Chanchali Devi/Mehvesh Anjum and the petitioner' family members and they shall not be arrested till further orders in connection with the case in question. If they feel insecure, they can apply to the police and, in such event, the police shall grant protection to them.”

¶30

In view of this, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 i.e. Commissioner of Police, Faridabad to look into the allegations as contained in the petition personally and take necessary steps in accordance with law if the situation so warrants.

¶31

This order shall not be construed to be conferring the

¶32

(3)

¶33

Crl. Misc. No. M-1695 of 2011 (O&M)

¶34

legitimacy or authenticity to the factum of marriage having been performed as the Court is clearly deprived of any means to determine the aforesaid facts.

¶35

Copy of the petition along with a copy of this order be sent to

¶36

respondent No.2.

¶37

January 21, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE

Vinita @ Beena and Another v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinita @ Beena and Another v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamla Devi and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Bhajna Ram Vs State of Punjab and Another

Surjit Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Simarjeet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sukhujit Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ramneet Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.