Disposed

Vandana and Another v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC13 May 2021CRWP/4361/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought protection under Article 21 for marrying each other against State wishes. Court directed State to ensure their safety without commenting on marriage validity or age. Order does not bar future proceedings under PCMA if underage.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents no.2 and 3 to ensure lives and liberty of petitioners are not put to harm or threat.

Vandana and Another Vs State of Haryana and… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRWP no.4361 of 2021 Date of Decision: 13.05.2021

¶3

�� …Petitioners

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Haryana and others …Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH

¶7

Present:Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶8

Mr. Munish Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

¶9

¶10

Amol Rattan Singh, J. (Oral)

¶11

Case heard by way of video conferencing.

¶12

By this petition, the petitioners seek protection of life and liberty at the hands of respondents no.4 and 5, upon the petitioners having married each other (as contended) against the wishes of the said respondents, on 15.04.2021.

¶13

On a specific query put to learned counsel for the petitioners, it has been stated that neither are the petitioners in any prohibited relationship to each other, nor has any of them been married earlier. He states that he has obtained specific instructions from the petitioners in that regard.

¶14

Consequently, since protection of life and liberty is a fundamental right of every citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, without making any comment whatsoever on the validity of the marriage, or otherwise, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents no.2 and 3, to ensure that the lives and liberty of the petitioners

¶15

VIKAS CHANDER 2021.05.14 22:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CRWP no.4361 of 2021

¶17

-2-

¶18

are not put to any harm or threat at the hands of the aforesaid respondents, or at their behest.

¶19

Since there is no firm proof of age of either of the petitioners other than their Aadhar Cards, which is actually not firm proof of age, (though an extract of what is stated to be a matriculation certificate issued to petitioner no.1 by the Punjab School Education Board, has been annexed as Annexure P-1 with the petition, with even not a photocopy of the complete certificate having been annexed), hence, this court is to observe that if any of the petitioners are found to be below marriageable age in terms of the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, this order shall not be construed to be a bar on any proceedings initiated under that Act, the offences committed under that Act being cognizable in terms of the provisions of Section 15 thereof.

¶20

Further, it is made clear that if any of the averments made in the petition is found to be incorrect, specifically with regard to either the petitioners being in any prohibited relationship to each other, or as regards their previous marital status, this order shall not be construed to be a bar on proceedings initiated as per law.

¶21

13.05.2021 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) vcgarg JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes Whether Reportable :No

¶22

VIKAS CHANDER 2021.05.14 22:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Vandana and Another v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vandana and Another v. State of Haryana and Others

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

Rohit Gupta Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Labh Singh Vs State of Haryana and Another

Subash Chander Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab

M/S Amrik Wines Vs State of Punjab and Others

Parneet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.