Allowed

Manvi & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 May 2012CRM-M/14156/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a matrimonial dispute involving allegations of apprehended danger to life and liberty, the Court directed police to verify the age of the petitioner and assess threat perception. The Court explicitly clarified that the order did not validate the legality of the marriage or grant immunity for cognizable offences.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Senior Superintendent of Police to verify age of petitioner No.1 and assess threat perception; liberty to grant interim protection.

Manvi & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M-14156 of 2012 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Criminal Misc. No. M-14156 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.5.2012

Manvi and another

--Petitioners.

Vs.

State of Punjab and others

¶8

--Respondents.

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

¶10

Present : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for

¶11

Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

¶13

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (ORAL)

¶14

Criminal Misc. No. 28711 of 2012

¶15

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶16

Criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of.

¶17

Criminal Misc. No. M-14156 of 2012.

¶18

Both the petitioners are present in person in the Court and identified by their counsel.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners are major and they have married each other of their own free will but against the wishes of private respondents No. 4 and 5. However, there is no proof of age of petitioner No.1 available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that apprehending danger to their life and liberty at the hands of private respondents No. 4 and 5, the petitioners moved a representation

¶20

Criminal Misc. No. M-14156 of 2012 2

¶21

dated 11.5.2012 (Annexure P-4) before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mohali (SAS Nagar), Punjab-respondent No.2, but no action thereon has been taken so far.

¶22

In view of the non availability of the proof of age of petitioner No.1 and to secure the ends of justice, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mohali (SAS Nagar), Punjab-respondent No.2, who shall get the age of petitioner No.1 verified and thereafter, he shall consider the threat perception raised by the petitioners vide their representation dated 11.5.2012 (Annexure P-4), dispassionately and expeditiously, passing an appropriate order thereon, as warranted by law, so as ensure that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondents No. 4 and 5.

¶23

Senior Superintendent of Police, Mohali (SAS Nagar), Punjab-respondent No.2, shall also be at liberty to grant an interim protection to the petitioners during the pendency of the inquiry about the age of petitioner No.1, in case he is satisfied that the petitioners are facing imminent danger to their life and liberty.

¶24

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

¶25

Criminal Misc. No. M-14156 of 2012 3

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

With the observations made above, the present petition

¶29

stands disposed of.

¶30

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶31

14.5.2012 AK Sharma

Manvi & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manvi & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Chain Lal & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sarpinder Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Ramandeep Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

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

Mahavir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others