Disposed

Pali Kaur and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 May 2012CRM-M/14347/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal miscellaneous petition seeking protection for a married couple against private respondents. The court directed police to verify the petitioner's age and assess threats without adjudicating the marriage's validity or granting immunity from criminal prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Senior Superintendent of Police, Mansa to verify petitioner's age and assess threat, with liberty for interim protection if imminent danger exists; no issuance of interim protection.

Pali Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Criminal Misc. No. M-14347 of 2012 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-14347 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.5.2012

¶5

Pali Kaur and another

¶6

--Petitioners.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

--Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

¶11

Present : Mr. Munish Puri, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

¶13

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (ORAL)

¶14

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

¶15

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 to 7. However, there is no proof of age of petitioner No.1 available on record, except her own affidavit (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that apprehending danger to their life and liberty at the hands of private respondents No. 4 to 7, petitioners moved a representation dated 9.5.2012 (Annexure P-4) before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mansa-respondent No.2, but no action thereon is being taken so far.

¶16

In view of the non availability of the proof of age of petitioner No.1 and to secure the ends of justice, petitioners are

¶17

¶18

Criminal Misc. No. M-14347 of 2012 (O&M)

¶19

directed to appear before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mansa-respondent No.2, who shall get the age of petitioner No.1 verified and thereafter, consider the threat perception raised by the petitioners, vide their representation dated 9.5.2012 (Annexure P-4), dispassionately and expeditiously passing an appropriate order thereon, a warranted by law, so as to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondents No. 4 to 7.

¶20

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Mansa-respondent No.2 shall also be at liberty to grant an interim protection to the petitioners, during the period of inquiry regarding the age of petitioner No.1, in case he comes to the conclusion that there is imminent danger to the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondents No. 4 to 7.

¶21

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 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.

¶22

It is also made clear that this order shall not entitle the

¶23

Criminal Misc. No. M-14347 of 2012 (O&M) 3 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.

¶24

With the observations made above, the present petition stands disposed of.

¶25

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶26

15.5.2012 AK Sharma

Pali Kaur and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pali Kaur and Anr. v. State of Punjab and 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

Ramandeep Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

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

Mahavir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Tanu Bala & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Rajinder Pal Singh Gill Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Karamjeet Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others