Remanded

Rajbala & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Jul 2012CRM-M/22225/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph order dismissed a petition regarding a marriage. The Court released the petitioners pending a police verification of the petitioner's age to address safety concerns but clarified that the order validated neither the marriage nor protected them from arrest for any criminal offence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to appear before the Superintendent of Police for age verification and consideration of threat perception.

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

¶1

CRM No.M-22225 of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-22225 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:26.7.2012

Raj Bala and another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

¶11

Present: Mr.H.S.Dhindsa, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral)

¶13

CRM No.42826 of 2012

¶14

Application is allowed subject to just exceptions.

¶15

Crl. Misc. application stands disposed of.

¶16

CRM No.M-22225 of 2012

¶17

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

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have married with each other of their own free will but against the wishes of private respondents. However, there is no prima facie proof of age of petitioner No.1 available on the record except her own affidavit, Annexure P-1. He further submits that apprehending danger to their life and liberty at the hands of private respondents, the petitioners approached the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra-respondent No.2 vide representation dated 25.7.2012, AnnexureP-5, but the same is also pending decision.

¶19

CRM No.M-22225 of 2012 (O&M)

¶20

¶21

In view of the non-availability of proof of age of petitioner No.1, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra-respondent No.2, who shall get the age of petitioner No.1 verified and thereafter shall consider the threat perception raised by the petitioners vide representation dated 25.7.2012 (Annexure P-5) 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 petitioners at the hands of the private respondents.

¶22

Respondent No.2 shall be at liberty to grant protection to the petitioners even during the pendency of the enquiry regarding age of petitioner No.1, if he comes to the conclusion that there is imminent danger to the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of the private respondents.

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

CRM No.M-22225 of 2012 (O&M)

¶27

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 stands disposed of.

¶29

26.7.2012 mks

¶30

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

Rajbala & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajbala & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Davinder Kumar Vs Govt. of Hry. and Ors.

Jaitpura Coop. Transport Soceity & Ors. Vs State of Hry. and Ors.

Major Singh @ Mithu Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Pavitar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Surinder Pal Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Shalinder Singh and Others Vs Union of India and Others