Disposed¶22

Lalita Saini and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Jan 2025CRWP/17/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab and Haryana High Court; CRWP-17-2025 (O&M); Nidhi Gupta J.; Article 21 protection of life and liberty; Article 226 mandamus; marriage against wishes of family/private respondents; right to live with person of choice; majors; threat perception assessment; representation dated 30.12.2024; direction to respondent No.3/police; petition disposed of; no monetary relief; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.3 to consider the petitioners' representation dated 30.12.2024 (Annexure P-6), assess the threat perception to the petitioners, and take appropriate action in accordance with law; pending applications, if any, also disposed of. ¶22

Lalita Saini and Anr. Vs State of Haryana… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents No.2 and 3 should be directed to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners (majors who married each other against the wishes of private respondents No.5 to 8) and not harass them at the instance of respondents No.5 to 8.

¶13

Court's answer

Protection of life and liberty is a basic feature of the Constitution of India emanating out of Article 21, and every person, more so a major, has the right to live his/her life with a person of his/her choice.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

When the Court is prima facie satisfied that relatives/persons unhappy with the relationship between the petitioners could cause harm to the petitioners' life and liberty, the Courts are required to pass necessary directions for their protection.

¶21

Key takeaways

The petitioners were found to be major (Petitioner No.1-Lalita Saini stated to be born on 12.09.2004 per Aadhaar Card Annexure P-1; Petitioner No.2-Sahil Khichi stated to be born on 28.12.1997 per Aadhaar Card Annexure P-3) and to have solemnized marriage on 28.12.2024 (Marriage Certificate Annexure P-5).ratio¶14
Operative direction: respondent No.3 shall consider the petitioners' representation dated 30.12.2024 (Annexure P-6), assess the threat perception to the petitioners, and after considering the same take appropriate action in accordance with law.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRWP-17-2025 (O&M), decided 03.01.2025 by Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta, Punjab and Haryana High Court: Petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents No.2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners — Lalita Saini and Sahil Khichi, stated to be majors (born 12.09.2004 and 28.12.1997 per Aadhaar Cards) who solemnized marriage on 28.12.2024 against the wishes of private respondents No.5 to 8 — and not to harass them at those respondents' instance. The Court held that protection of life and liberty is a basic feature of the Constitution emanating out of Article 21; every person, more so a major, has the right to live with a person of choice; and where the Court is prima facie satisfied that unhappy relatives/persons could cause harm to the petitioners, necessary protective directions must be passed. The DAG, Haryana (for respondents Nos.1-4) raised no objection to respondent No.3 looking into the petitioners' threat-perception representation. Petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 30.12.2024 (Annexure P-6), assess the threat perception, and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶1

CRWP-17-2025 (O&M) -1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

110

¶4

CRWP-17-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.01.2025

¶5

Lalita Saini and another .… Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and others

¶8

.... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶10

Present: - Mr. Manjot Singh Rai, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

¶12

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Prayer in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing respondents No.2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners from respondents No. 5 to 8 and not to harass the petitioners at the instance of respondents No. 5 to 8 as the petitioners got married with each other, against the wishes of private respondents.

¶14

Petitioner No.1-Lalita Saini is stated to be born on 12.09.2004 and for this purpose, reference has been made to Aadhaar Card (Annexure P-1). Petitioner No.2-Sahil Khichi is stated to be born on 28.12.1997 and for the said purpose, reference has been made to Aadhaar Card (Annexure P-3). The petitioners are major and have solemnized Marriage on 28.12.2024. A copy of the Marriage Certificate of the petitioners is annexed to the petition as Annexure P-5.

¶15

Notice of motion.

¶16

Mr. Surinder Kumar Dagar, DAG, Haryana appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondents Nos.1 to 4 and has stated that he

¶17

DIVYANSHI 2025.01.03 14:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRWP-17-2025 (O&M) -2 -

¶19

has no objection in case respondent No.3 is directed to look into the representation of the petitioners on the aspect of threat perception and to take appropriate action, in accordance with law.

¶20

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

It goes without saying that the protection of life and liberty is a basic feature of the Constitution of India as emanating out of Article 21. Every person, moreso, a major, has right to live his/her life with a person of his/her choice. Whenever this Court, prima-facie, is satisfied that on account of some relatives/ persons being unhappy with the relationship between the petitioners could cause harm to the life and liberty of the petitioners, then in such circumstances, the Courts are required to pass necessary directions for their protection.

¶22

Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 30.12.2024 (Annexure P-6) and to assess the threat perception to the petitioners and after considering the same, respondent No.3 shall take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶23

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with above said

¶24

directions.

¶25

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶26

03.01.2025 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE

¶27

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶28

DIVYANSHI 2025.01.03 14:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Lalita Saini and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalita Saini and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ikbal Vs Shayara Bano & Anr.

Jaswinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Another

Tarun Bagga Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

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

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

Priyanka Dasauni and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others