Disposed

Lakhwinder Kaur and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Sept 2026CRWP/11088/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, two minors in a live-in relationship, sought court directions for protection of life and liberty. The Court, without adjudicating on merits or their age/relationship nature, directed the Senior Superintendent of Police to investigate a filed representation within two weeks. The petition stands disposed off.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 (SSP, Bathinda) to investigate the petitioners' representation and pass orders within two weeks.

Lakhwinder Kaur and Anr. Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

138

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRWP-11088-2026 Decided on : 11.09.2026 Date of uploading: 11.09.2026

¶4

Lakhwinder Kaur and another ....Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

State of Punjab and others

¶7

....Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

¶9

Present: Mr. Sirat Sapra, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

¶11

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

¶12

The petitioners have approached this Court for issuance of necessary directions for protecting their life and liberty which according to them is at stake because they are in a live-in-relationship. The petitioners claim themselves to be major in terms of age. According to the copies of the Aadhar Cards (appended alongwith the petition in hand as Annexures P-1 and P-2), the date of birth of the petitioner No.1-Lakhwinder Kaur is 10.07.2008 and the date of birth of the petitioner No.2-Sumeet is 18.01.2008.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a marriage is not a must for providing security to a couple in a ‘live-in-relationship’ because protection qua life and liberty is sacrosanct and stands at the highest pedestal. He has also placed reliance upon orders passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in ‘ Sarabjeet Kaur and another versus State of Punjab and others’ in CRWP-102-2022 decided on 07.01.2022; ‘Goutam Kumar and another versus State of Punjab and others’ in CRWP-8088-2021 decided on 26.08.2021; Bharti and Another Versus State of U.T., Chandigarh & others and ‘Annu

¶14

NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.09.11 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticityi of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh.

¶15

¶16

CRWP-11088-2026

¶17

Rani & Anr. vs. State of Haryana’ in CRWP-11060-2023 decided on 15.11.2023.

¶18

Notice of motion to respondent Nos. 1 & 2 (i.e. official respondents).

¶19

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents.

¶20

At this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case as well as on the age and nature of the relationship between the petitioners, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No.2 (Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda) to look into the matter and pass an appropriate order on the representation stated to have been filed by the petitioners before him/her on 06.09.2026 (Annexure P-3) & pass appropriate orders thereupon within two weeks from today.

¶21

However, if the petitioners are found to have been involved in any other case, then this order shall not preclude the competent authority from taking lawful action against the petitioners.

¶22