Amrita and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Amrita and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondent No.2-Superintendent of Police, Nuh, District Nuh, Haryana, to decide petitioner No.1's representation (Annexure P-3) and grant protection to the petitioners if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived; the order confers no immunity from legal action and expresses no opinion on the validity of the live-in relationship.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents No.2 and 3 should be directed to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners from private respondents No.4 to 12, and directed not to harass or interfere with the petitioners at the instance of the private respondents. +1 more

Court's answer

Without entering upon an exercise to evaluate the evidentiary value of the documents placed on the file, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to respondent No.2-Superintendent of Police, Nuh, District Nuh, Haryana, to decide the representation (Annexure P-3) of petitioner No.1 and to grant protection to the petitioners if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived.

Ratio / Principle

The order shall not be taken to grant immunity to the petitioners from legal action for violation of law, if any, committed by them.

Key takeaways

The order is not to be understood as expressing any opinion whatsoever by this Court on the validity of the petitioners' live-in relationship; the Court expressly left this point open.obiter¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRWP-142-2025 | High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh | Decision: January 09, 2025 | Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (oral). Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Amrita and another - both stated to be Muslim, majors, previously married with children, now living together against the wishes of private respondents No.4 to 12, from whom they apprehend danger to life and liberty - seeking directions to respondents No.2 and 3 to protect them and not to harass or interfere at the instance of the private respondents. Petitioner No.1 had submitted a representation dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure P-3) to respondent No.2. Without evaluating the evidentiary value of the documents on file, the Court disposed of the petition, directing respondent No.2-Superintendent of Police, Nuh, District Nuh, Haryana, to decide the representation and grant protection if any threat to life and liberty is perceived. Clarified: (i) the order grants no immunity from legal action for violation of law, if any, committed by the petitioners; and (ii) the Court expressed no opinion on the validity of the live-in relationship.

CRWP-142-2025

112

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRWP-142-2025 Date of Decision: January 09, 2025

Amrita and another

......Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others

......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present: Mr.Sourabh Kandos, Advocate for Mr.Munfaid Khan, 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 to 12 and further for directing the respondents not to harass or interfere at the instance of private repsondents, who are annoyed from relationship of the petitoners against their wishes.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that both the petitioners are Muslim by religion and major. It is submitted that both the petitioners were earlier married and were having children and now they are living together against the wishes of respondents No.4 to 12. They apprehend danger from respondents No.4 to 12. Petitioner No.1 has submitted a representation, dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure P-3) to respondent

No.2.

MEENU 2025.01.10 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRWP-142-2025 -2-

Notice of motion to respondents no.1 to 3-State only.

On the asking of the Court, Mr.Sumit Jain, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/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-Superintendent of Police, Nuh, District Nuh, Haryana, to decide the representation (Annexure P-3) of petitioner No.1 and grant protection to the petitioners, 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 their live-in-relationship.

January 09, 2025	( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
meenuss	JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned ?	Yes/No
2. Whether reportable ?	Yes/No

MEENU 2025.01.10 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document