Disposed

Harvinder Kaur & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Mar 2011CRM-M/3157/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application to place a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act on record. Directions were issued to police for protection of petitioners opposing parental marriage wishes, though the court noted the primary petitioner now resides with parents.

What did the court decide?

Application to place petition on record allowed. Directions to police for protection of petitioners issued.

Harvinder Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Haryana… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

Crl. Misc. No. M-3157 of 2011

¶4

Date of Decision:22.03.2011

¶5

Harvinder Kaur and another

¶6

.....Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Haryana and others

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶11

Present:Mr. Maharaj Kumar, Advocate for petitioner No.1.

¶12

Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶13

Ms. Sonia Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4.

¶14

¶15

DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.(Oral)

¶16

Crl. Misc. No.12074 of 2011

¶17

This is an application for placing on record a copy of the petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

¶18

Application is allowed and document is taken on record.

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M-3157 of 2011

¶20

Reply on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 has been filed in the Court and the same is taken on record.

¶21

Since the present petition was filed on behalf of both the petitioners, namely, Harvinder Kaur and Manjit Singh for issuance of direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to protect their lives and liberty as they have solemnised marriage against the wishes of their parents and now statement has been made on behalf of petitioner No.1 only that she is not in need of any protection as she is residing with her parents with her own free will.

¶22

-2-

¶23

Crl. Misc. No. M-3157 of 2011

¶24

Learned counsel for petitioner No.2 is not present in Court and nothing has been sated with regard to providing protection to petitioner No.2. Initially, the protection was required only when both of them solemnised their marriage contrary to the wishes of their parents but now petitioner No.1 is residing with her parents, it appears that no protection is required by petitioner No.2. However, if petitioner No.2 is in need of any protection, an application/ representation may be moved to the concerned police authority for said purpose and if such application is moved by petitioner No.2, the same would be looked into by the concerned police authority.

¶25

Disposed of accordingly.

¶26

March 22, 2011 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) renu JUDGE

Harvinder Kaur & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harvinder Kaur & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurpreet Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

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

Surender Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Balraj Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kulwinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Another

Poonam and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.