Married couple sought protection of life and liberty from relatives opposed to their marriage. Court directed the SSP, Patiala, to decide their representation and grant protection if threat is perceived, without expressing opinion on marriage validity.
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.
107
2024:PHHC:042399
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP No.2770 of 2024 Date of Decision: 27.03.2024
Amandeep Kaur and another
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sammi, Advocate for the petitioners. *******
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing respondents No.2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners from the hands of respondents No.4 & 5 and not to harass, interfere in the peaceful life of the petitioners and not to intrude into the privacy of the petitioners by raiding their house time and again.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that both the petitioners are major and have married against the wishes of respondents No.4 & 5 and have sought protection to their life and liberty. They apprehend danger from respondents No.4 & 5. Their marriage photographs evidencing their marriage are on record as Annexure P-5. The petitioners have submitted a representation dated 18.03.2024 (Annexure P-6) to respondent No.2.
Notice of motion to respondents no.1 to 3-State only.
RITTU 2024.03.27 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRWP No.2770 of 2024
-22024:PHHC:042399
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Shiva Khurmi, AAG, Punjab, appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3- State.
Without entering upon an exercise to evaluate the evidentiary value of the documents placed on the file, I dispose of the petition with a direction to respondent No.2-the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, Punjab to decide the representation (Annexure P-6) of the petitioners and grant them protection, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived. It is clarified that this order shall not be taken to grant immunity to the petitioners from legal action for violation of law, if any, committed by them. This order would not be understood having expressed any opinion whatsoever by this Court on the validity of the marriage of the petitioners.
Disposed of.
| (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) JUDGE |
||
|---|---|---|
| 27.03.2024 | ||
| rittu | ||
| Whether speaking/reasoned | : Yes/No |
|
| Whether reportable | : Yes/No |
RITTU 2024.03.27 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether protection should be granted to a married couple alleging threat to life and liberty from relatives opposing their marriage?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amandeep Kaur
another
State of Punjab
others
RAJESH BHARDWAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
