High CourtsSINGLE BENCH

Rajbir Kaur and another vs State of Punjab and others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 16 October 2017 · Citation: (2017) 10 P&H CK 0025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sudip Ahluwalia
RESULT
Disposed
CASE NUMBER
39418 of 2017

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

32 paragraphs · 352 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, have married each other

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

to 9, and so seek appropriate protection from the authorities. They submitted

a representation (Annexure P-6) in this regard to the Senior Superintendent

of Police, Ferozepur on 7th October, 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, photographs and Marriage Certificate issued by

"Gurudwara Man Sarovar Sahib Ji, Harike Patan (District Tarn Taran)" and

photographs (Annexures P-4 and P-5) 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 Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur is

directed to consider the representation dated 7th October, 2017 (Annexure

P-6) 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 Aadhar Cards (Annexures P-1

and P-2). 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.