Petitioners claiming to have married against their families' wishes sought police protection invoking Article 21. Counsel for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the petition at the outset, and the High Court disposed of it as withdrawn with pending applications.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
109
CRWP-8071-2024
Date of Decision: 23.08.2024
Parveen Kaur and another
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. D.S. Nigha, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Swati Batra, DAG, Punjab (Through VC).
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Apprehending threat to their lives and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, the petitioners who claim to have married after attaining the permissible age for marriage, against the wishes of the private respondents, have come up before this Court by invoking their fundamental rights of life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to the State to protect them.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 23.08.2024 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable? No
ANJU RANI 2024.08.27 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Parveen Kaur
another
State of Punjab
others
Anoop Chitkara
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
