Single judge order disposing a notice of motion petition regarding a course of protection for married petitioners, directing the Superintendent of Police to consider an application if threats exist.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM No.M-12263 of 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-12263 of 2013 Date of decision: 12.4.2013
Monika and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.Sumit Puri, Advocate for the petitioner
Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioner No.1 is major, whereas the petitioner No.2 has not attained the majority. He is residing with petitioner No.1 as they have both solemnized the marriage.
Notice of motion.
At the asking of the Court, Mr.Luvinder Sofat, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. A complete copy of the paper book has been furnished to the learned State counsel, in the Court.
Without expressing any opinion with regard to validity of marriage and on the merits of the assertions made in the petition, the instant petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2, Senior Superintendent of Police, Barnala that in case the petitioners
CRM No.M-12263 of 2013 2
move an application before him for protection of their life and liberty, he will look into the matter and provide necessary protection to the petitioners, if he is satisfied that the life and liberty of the petitioners is threatened at the hands of respondent Nos.4 and 5, in accordance with law.
12.4.2013 gsv
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE
Monika and another
State of Punjab
Senior Superintendent of Police, Barnala
Jitendra Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
