AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajbir Sehrawat, J
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of directions to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to protect the
life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondent Nos. 4 to 8 and not to harass or interfere in the peaceful married life of the petitioners.
The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he has verified the identity of the petitioners.
The petitioners seek protection of their life and liberty by contending that both of them having attained the age of majority, have married each other
against the wishes of their respective family members/respondents No.4 to 8 and so seek appropriate protection from the authorities. They claim to
have submitted a representation (Annexure P-5) in this regard to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Pathankot on 18.12.2020, but are still
apprehensive about their safety and security in view of the alleged inaction of the police and the alleged clout of their family members/respondents.
Notice of motion to the Advocate General, Punjab only.
Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Senior DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State.
Both the petitioners do appear to have crossed the age of majority as seen from the copies of documents filed and claim to have married each other, in
support of which photographs (Annexures P-4) have been placed on record.
For the aforesaid reasons, this appears to be a fit case for this Court to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
ensure the right to life and liberty as guaranteed to them by Article 21 of the Constitution.
Thus, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Pathankot is directed to consider the representation dated 18.12.2020 (Annexure-P-5) and take appropriate
steps to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners.
It is nevertheless clarified that this order is issued only on the premise that the petitioners have crossed the age of majority; as seen from the
documents placed on record; being passports of the petitioners No.1 & 2 (Annexures P-1 & P-2). The petitioners have produced on record a copy of
the alleged marriage certificate (Annexure P-3) qua their stated marriage. However, this order would not ipso facto amount to granting any seal of
approval on the legality of their marriage, which essentially would come in the domain of the concerned Matrimonial Courts. Further, they would not
be entitled for any protection against their arrest or continuance of any criminal proceedings, if otherwise, found to be involved in commission of any
cognizable offence(s).
The petition is disposed of with the above direction.