Meenu Rani And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others

Suvir Sehgal, J

Meenu Rani (petitioner No. 1) claims to be 21 years and Mohit son of Manoj (petitioner No. 2) claims to be 20 years of age. They have pleaded that they have married against the wishes of respondents No. 5 to 8 and seek protection to their life and liberty. They apprehend danger from respondents No. 5 to 8. They have placed on record photographs, Annexure P-3, claiming that they married on 28.12.2019, but Mandir did not issue any Marriage Certificate. The petitioners have submitted a representation dated 28.12.2019, Annexure P-4 to respondents No. 2 to 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed by a Division Bench in LPA No. 385 of 2016 titled as Elaichi v. State of Punjab, decided on 16.05.2016 and a judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in CWP No. 17069 of 2019 titled as Kawaljeet Kaur v. State of Punjab, decided on 24.06.2019 to submit that even though boy was not of marriageable age, this Court had entertained their petitions for protection of their life and liberty.

Without entering upon an exercise to evaluate the evidentiary value of the documents placed on the file, I dispose of the petition with directions to respondents No. 2 to 4 to decide the representation of the petitioners, Annexure P-4 and grant them protection, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived.

It is clarified that this order shall not be treated as a stamp of this Court for the marriage of the petitioners.