Writ petition under Art. 226 for protection direction to police after petitioners filed marriage certificate and reported threats. Court directed police to provide safety but clarified it does not validate the marriage.
Direction to respondent No. 2 to provide necessary protection to petitioners after considering threat perceptions.
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.
1
CRWP-11047-2026 (O&M)
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
113 CRWP-11047-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.09.2026
RUKSAN AND ANOTHER
... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present: Ms. Varsha Chaudhary, Advocate, for Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)
SAURAV PATHANIA 2026.09.11 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2
CRWP-11047-2026 (O&M)
(VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 11.09.2026 JUDGE
S. Pathania
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
SAURAV PATHANIA 2026.09.11 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Warrant under Art. 226 should direct police to provide protection to adult petitioners who faced threats after marriage.
Whether direction to provide protection validates a marriage allegedly performed by minors.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
RUKSAN AND ANOTHER
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
VIRINDER AGGARWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
