Disposed

Komal Sharma & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Mar 2018CRM-M/10095/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought protection from their intended in-laws who opposed their marriage. The Court directed the Superintendent of Police to ensure the victims' safety, explicitly stating that the order does not validate their union.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 2, Superintendent of Police, to ensure lives and liberty of petitioners are not jeopardised by Respondents 4 to 6.

Komal Sharma & Anr. Vs State of Haryana… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

CRM-M No. 10095 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M No. 10095 of 2018 DATE OF DECISION :- March 09, 2018

¶5

Komal Sharma and another ...Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and others ...Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN

¶9

Present :- Mr. Deepak K. Bartia, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

¶11

Petitioners are present in the Court.

¶12

It is contended that petitioner no. 1 Komal Sharma, aged about 22 years has married petitioner no. 2 Shubham, aged about 23 years, against the wishes of her family members, arrayed as respondents no. 4 to 6, who are threatening to interfere in their marital life, as such to seek protection in that regard, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the present petition.

¶13

Notice of motion.

¶14

At asking of the Court Mr. Surender Singh, AAG, Haryana accepted notice on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3 whereas, Mr. Gautam Diwan, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondents no. 4 and 5 by filing vakalatnama, which be taken on record.

¶15

At the asking respondents no. 4 and 5 they have been allowed to meet Komal Sharma-petitioner no. 1. Such respondents states that neither

¶16

Parvinder Singh 2018.03.09 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

CRM-M No. 10095 of 2018 2

¶18

they nor their son Pardeep Sharma-respondent no. 6 have interfered in the martial life of the petitioners nor would they do so. However, they do not want to have any relation with the petitioners and petitioners should not visit them.

¶19

The petitioners state that they would act accordingly. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that necessary orders with regard to protection of the petitioners be passed.

¶20

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 2 Superintendent of Police, District Yamuna Nagar to take necessary steps to ensure that lives and liberty of the petitioners are not jeopardised at the hands of respondents no. 4 to 6. However, this direction will not validate the marriage said to have taken place between the petitioners and will have no effect on any civil or criminal action which could be initiated in the matter in accordance with law.

¶21

(H.S. MADAAN) JUDGE March 09, 2018 p.singh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶22

Parvinder Singh 2018.03.09 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Komal Sharma & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Komal Sharma & Anr. v. State of Haryana & 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

Krishna Wanti Vs Amar Singh and Ors.

Noora and Ors. Vs Roop Lal

Iqbal Singh & Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation Jalandhar & Anr.

Durga Devi Vs State of Haryana

Sewa Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gulzar Masih and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.