Petitioners seeking protection order against family members who opposed their love marriage. Court directed police protection but clarified order does not validate marriage.
Respondent Superintendent of Police directed to look into grievances and take measures to ensure lives of petitioners are not jeopardized.
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-M-20931 of 2018 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-20931 of 2018 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.5.2018
Priyanka Kushari and another
................Petitioners
vs.
State of Haryana and others
.................Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan
Present: Petitioners in person with Ms. Kuljinder Kaur, Advocate.
H. S. Madaan, J. (Oral)
It is contended that petitioner No.1 – Priyanka Kushari, aged about 19 years has got married with petitioner No.2- Narender Rai Verma, aged about 33 years, against the wishes of her family members, arrayed as private respondents No. 4 and 5, 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.
The petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 – Superintendent of Police, Ambala, to look into the grievances of the petitioners and to take necessary measures to ensure that lives and liberty of the petitioners are not jeopardized at the hands of
Banita Chugh 2018.05.16 18:24 I am the author of this document
CRM-M-20931 of 2018 -2-
respondents No. 4 and 5 or persons claiming under them.
However, this order shall not validate the marriage between
the petitioners and shall not have any effect on any civil or criminal action to which the petitioners may be found liable, under the law.
( H.S. Madaan ) 16.5.2018 Judge chugh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No Whether reportable Yes / No
Banita Chugh 2018.05.16 18:24 I am the author of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an order directing police protection in a love marriage case validates the marriage or affects civil/criminal liability.
Whether private respondents interfering with the marital life of petitioners are to be addressed under a writ petition for protection.
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to provide protection against family opposition to a minor's marriage.
Priyanka Kushari
Narender Rai Verma
State of Haryana
Banita Chugh
Petitioner No. 4
Petitioner No. 5
H S Madaan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
