Disposed

Aisha @ Kirandeep Kaur and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Jul 2012CRM-M/5032/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking protection from threats by the petitioner’s father and mother regarding a minor’s marriage, the Court, noting the absence of actual threats and invalidity of minor’s affidavit, disposed of the petition without commenting on marriage validity.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file complaint to police if threats exist; police to take action if serious threat found.

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

¶1

(1)

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-5032 of 2012 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-5032 of 2012 (O&M)

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 10.07.2012

¶6

Aisha @ Kirandeep Kaur and another

¶7

..........Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Punjab and others

¶10

..........Respondents

¶11

BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶12

Present:Mohd. Salim, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. R.S. Rawat, AAG, Punjab.

¶14

Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. ****

¶15

DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.

¶16

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of directions to respondents No.2 and 3 to protect their lives and liberty at the hands of respondents No.4 and 5 as they are apprehending threat at their instance.

¶17

Both the petitioners as well as respondents No.4 and 5 are present in the Court.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners are major for the purpose of marriage as petitioner No.1 was 18 years of age and petitioner No.2 was more than 22 years of age at the time of filing of the present petition.

¶19

Notice of motion was issued on 21.2.2012 and following order

¶20

(2)

¶21

Crl. Misc. No. M-5032 of 2012 (O&M)

¶22

was passed:-

¶23

“An additional affidavit of petitioner No.1 has been filed in the Court and the same is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have solemnized their marriage against the wishes of private respondents and they are now apprehending threat at the instance of private respondents.

¶24

Notice of motion for 1.5.2012.

¶25

Meanwhile, no case relating to abduction, rape or any other offence relating to the marriage of the petitioners be registered against them.”

¶26

Subsequently, an application was moved on behalf of respondents No.4 and 5, who are father and mother of petitioner No.1, wherein, it has been mentioned that petitioner No.1 was not major at the time of filing of the present petition and she was less than 18 years of age and this material fact has been concealed in the petition. It has also been mentioned that the petition as well as affidavits filed by petitioner No.1 in support of the petition and her date of birth are not maintainable as minor cannot file affidavit.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 and 5 submits that nothing has been mentioned as to how the date of birth in the petition has been given without having any valid documental proof for the same. Although an additional affidavit has been filed by petitioner No.1 stating therein that the date of birth in question was told to her by her mother, whereas, respondent No.5, who is mother of petitioner No.1, has specifically denied this fact as date of birth of petitioner No.1 is 12.8.1994 as is reflected in her matriculation examination certificate, which is on record as Annexure A-1. Learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 also

¶28

(3)

¶29

Crl. Misc. No. M-5032 of 2012 (O&M)

¶30

submits that they have not threatened the petitioners at any point of time and they also undertake not to threaten the petitioners in future also. Learned counsel also submits that the dispute is with regard to the age and petitioner No.1 has been enticed away by petitioner No.2 being the minor and the marriage is not valid.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that in case any representation is made by the petitioners the same will be looked into.

¶32

Without commenting anything of the merits of the case as well as about the validity of the marriage as this is not the subject matter of the present petition and keeping in view the fact that respondents No.4 and 5 are not threatening the petitioners, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners that in case any threat is there to them, they can file complaint to the police authorities. The police authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners and to take necessary action in accordance with law in case they come to the conclusion that any serious threat is there to the petitioners.

¶33

Respondents No.4 and 5 are also at liberty to avail the alternative remedy available under the law.

¶34

Disposed of accordingly.

¶35

July 10, 2012 pooja

¶36

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

Aisha @ Kirandeep Kaur and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aisha @ Kirandeep 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Gupta Vs M/S V.M.I. Industries

Rajesh Gupta Vs M/S Vidya Metal Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd.

Vijay Pal Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Samarbeer Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Vinit Rana Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Punjab