Allowed

Monika and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 May 2012CRM-M/10235/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two petitions seeking police protection and writ of habeas corpus. Monika denied illegal detention by parents and refusal to go回乡 with husband. Habeas corpus petition rendered infructuous. Direction for police protection on threat perception made absolute with clarifications on marriage validity and criminal liability.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Superintendent of Police, Karnal made absolute to consider threats and ensure safety; Habeas Corpus petition disposed of as infructuous.

Monika and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Domestic Violence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl.Misc.No.M-10235 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl.Misc.No.M-10235 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision : 8.5.2012

¶5

Monika and another .......Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondents Crl.W.P.No.884 of 2012 Sohan Lal ....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondents

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

¶7

¶8

Present : Mr. Krishan Siungh, Advocate for the petitioners in Crl.Misc.No.M10235 of 2012. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana, for respondents no.1 to 4 in Crl.Misc.No.M-10235 of 2012 and for respondents no.1 to 3 in Crl.W.P.No.884 of 2012.

¶9

Mr.R.S. Mamli, Advocate for respondents no.5 to 7 in Crl.Misc.No.M10235 of 2012 and for respondents no.4 to 6 in Crl.W.P.No.884 of 2012.

¶10

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J

¶11

Crl.Misc.No.21207 of 2012

¶12

Application is allowed subject to just exceptions.

¶13

Crl. Misc. application stands disposed of.

¶14

Crl.Misc.No.M-10235 of 2012

¶15

These are two petitions, which are proposed to be disposed of vide this

¶16

common order. First bearing Crl.Misc.No.M-10235 of 2012 (Monika and another Vs.

¶17

Crl.Misc.No.M-10235 of 2012

¶18

¶19

State of Haryana and others) filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court for issuance of direction to the official respondents providing protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondents.

¶20

The second petition is Crl.Writ Petition No.884 of 2012 (Sohan Lal Vs. State of Haryana and others) seeking a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for getting his alleged wife Monika released from the alleged illegal custody of respondents no.4 to 6. However, facts are being culled out from the first petition i.e. Crl.Misc.No.M10235 of 2012, for facility of reference.

¶21

The petitioners approached this court claiming themselves to be major and having got married with each other on their own free will. They further stated that since they are apprehending danger to their life and liberty at the hands of private respondents, they may be provided police protection.

¶22

Notice of motion was issued vide order dated 9.4.2012 and respondent no.3 was directed to verify the age of petitioner no.1 because there was no proof available on the record of this case, regarding her age.

¶23

So far as the age of petitioner no.1 is concerned, learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that she was major, when she approached this court on 9.4.2012. After falling apart from petitioner no.2, she is present in court alongwith her counsel. Learned counsel for petitioner no.1 submits that petitioner no.1-Monika has gone back to her parents i.e. Respondents no.5 to 7 and she is staying with them on her own sweet will. On the asking of the court, petitioner no.1-Monika has categorically stated

¶24

Crl.Misc.No.M-10235 of 2012

¶25

¶26

that neither she wants to talk with petitioner no.2 nor she wants to go with him. On the other hand, she has stated that she had been staying with her parents on her own. She would like to stay only with them and not with petitioner no.2. She has further stated that she was never detained illegally by respondents no.5 to 7.

¶27

In Crl.W.P.No.884 of 2012, petitioner has alleged that his wife Monikaalleged detenue was illegally detained by respondents no.4 to 6, who are also respondents no.5 to 7 in above said Crl.Misc.No.M-10235 of 2012. The alleged detenue Ms. Monika is present in the court and she has made a categoric statement referred to above that neither she was illegally detained by private respondents no.4 to 6 nor she wants to go with Sohan Lal-petitioner.

¶28

In view of the above statement made by learned counsel for the parties and also by Ms. Monika, the Crl. Writ Petition No.884 of 2012 has been rendered infructuous and is ordered to be disposed of, as such.

¶29

So far as the direction issued to Superintendent of Police, Karnalrespondent no.2 vide order dated 9.4.2012 is concerned, the same is hereby made absolute. The Superintendent of Police, Karnal-respondent no.2 is directed to consider the threat perception, as and when raised by petitioner no.2-Sohan Lal, dispassionately and expeditiously, passing an appropriate order thereon, as warranted by law, so as to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioner at the hands of private respondents.

¶30

However, lest this order is misunderstood, it is clarified that this order

¶31

Crl.Misc.No.M-10235 of 2012

¶32

¶33

shall not mean that the petitioners had reached the age of marriage, as required by the law applicable to them, at the time of their marriage or that their marriage is legal as per the relevant provisions of law. I say so because neither it is the issue involved in the present petition nor this Court is putting its seal of approval on the validity of marriage of the petitioners. In fact, it is the domain of the matrimonial Court of competent jurisdiction, to decide the validity of the marriage and that too on the basis of the pleadings taken and the evidence led by the parties in the given circumstances of each case.

¶34

It is also made clear that this order shall not entitle the petitioners for any protection against their arrest or continuance of any criminal proceedings, if they are found involved in the commission of any cognizable offence. In case the petitioners

¶35

had committed any offence, the law will take its own course.

¶36

In view of the observations made above,both these petitions stand

¶37

disposed of.

¶38

8.5.2012 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) GS JUDGE

Monika and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monika and Anr. v. State of Haryana and 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

M/S Soniques (India) Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs M/S Sahara India Commerical Corpn. Ltd.

Raghbir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Asha Thakur Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Sanju Bala & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Manpreet Kaur etc. Vs State of Haryana etc.

Gurjant Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.