Petitioners sought protection against their parents for solemnizing inter-family marriage. Court noted petitioner No. 1 was over 18 and married voluntarily. Petition dismissed conditionally; protection directed if future threats arise.
Protection directed to respondent No. 2 only in case any apprehension of threat arises in future.
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.
Criminal Misc. No. M-29752 of 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-29752 of 2013 Date of decision: 26.11.2013.
Ranjit Kaur and another
..Petitioners
Versus
The State of Punjab and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Premjit Singh Hundal, AAG, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3 – State.
Mr. Deepanjay Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 6.
Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
Prayer in the present petition is for issuance of direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to provide protection to the lives and liberty of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have solemnized marriage contrary to the wishes of private respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even the FIR has wrongly been registered against petitioner No.2 under Sections 363, 366 of Indian Penal Code whereas both the petitioners have solemnized their marriage as per their own free will and without any pressure from either side. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that petitioners are major as date of birth of petitioner
Rani Neetu 2013.11.29 13:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No. M-29752 of 2013
2
No.1 is 15.05.1991 whereas date of birth of petitioner No.2 is 25.02.1991. In support of age of petitioner No.1, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon copy of the passport as well as birth certificate wherein the date of birth of petitioner No.1 has been mentioned as 15.05.1991.
Learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 6 submits that petitioner No.1 is minor as she was born in the year 1996 and the certificate, which has been shown in support of petition, is not genuine as year has been mentioned as 1991.
Both the petitioners are present in the Court.
Petitioner No.1 has specifically stated in the Court that there was no pressure upon her and she is residing with petitioner No.2 after marriage as per her own will and leading a happy married life. She has also stated that she is more than 22 years of age and is having three brother and sisters, who are younger to her and youngest one is studying in 4/5th standard.
In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners as a very limited prayer is there for protection of the lives and liberty of the petitioners and as per statement of the petitioner No.1 that she has solemnized marriage with petitioner No.2, admittedly petitioner No.1 is more than 18 years of age and there is no dispute that no pressure was there upon petitioner No.1 from petitioner No.2 as she has stated that she has solemnized marriage with petitioner No.2 and is happy in her married life.
Rani Neetu 2013.11.29 13:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No. M-29752 of 2013
3
Learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 6 also submits that although marriage has been solemnized but respondents No.4 to 6 are still concerned with the welfare of their daughter and in case, petitioner No.1 is kept properly by petitioner No.2, they have no objection to the marriage of the petitioners.
Petitioner No.2 submits before this Court that only mere allegations are there against him, otherwise he is earning his livelihood and is having no habit as has been alleged by the parents of petitioner No.1.
In view of above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 that in case, any apprehension of threat is there in future, then protection be provided to the petitioner.
26.11.2013 neetu
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE
Rani Neetu 2013.11.29 13:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether protection under Article 21 is required for petitioners who solemnized marriage contrary to parents' wishes.
Whether petitioners are major and married out of free will.
Whether relief can be granted conditionally upon apprehended threat.
Ranjit Kaur
Petitioner No. 2
State of Punjab
Parents of Petitioner No. 1
Daya Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
