High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 11 P&H CK 0034

Kusum and another vs State of Haryana and others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 24 November 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sudip Ahluwalia
RESULT
Disposed
CASE NUMBER
44686-2017

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

31 paragraphs · 337 words
1.

Both the petitioners are present in person and identified by their

counsel. They seek protection of their life and liberty by contending that

both of them having attained the age of majority, having married each other

against the wishes of their respective family members respondent Nos.4 and

5, and so seek appropriate protection from the authorities. They submitted a

representation (Annexure P-5) in this regard to the Superintendent of Police,

Karnal on 21.11.2017, but are still apprehensive about their security in view

of the apparent inaction and alleged clout of their family members-

respondents.

2.

Both of them do appear to have crossed the age of majority as

seen from the copies of documents filed and have married, each other in

support of which, Marriage Certificate issued by "Shri Adhi Shakti Ved

Pathsala (Regd.)" and photographs (Annexures P-3 and P-4) have been

placed on record.

3.

For the aforesaid reasons, this appears to be a fit case for this

Court to invoke the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and in

view of the mandate contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India to

protect the citizen''s right to life and liberty.

4.

Thus the Superintendent of Police, Karnal is directed to

consider the representation dated 21.11.2017 (Annexure P-5) and take

appropriate steps to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of

the petitioners.

5.

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 their Aadhaar Cards. This 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).

6.

The petition is disposed off with the above direction.