High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 06 P&H CK 0045

Rekha Rani and another vs State of Punjab and others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 14 June 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Amol Rattan Singh
CASE NUMBER
M-21941 of 2017

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

36 paragraphs · 386 words
1.

The petitioners, who are present in the court, are seeking

protection of their lives and liberty at the hands of respondents No.4

to 6, who are stated to be the parents and brother of petitioner No.1,

on account of the fact that they have married each other of their own

free will, on 13.06.2017. Photographs of what is stated to be a

marriage ceremony have been annexed with the petition.

2.

As regards age of petitioner No.1, there is no firm proof

of her age other than her affidavit (Annexure P-1), stating that her

date of birth is 06.11.1996, thereby making her more than 20 years of

age.

3.

As regards age of petitioner No.2, a copy of the Aadhar

Card issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India has been

annexed with the petition, (the original of which has not been

produced in Court), showing his year of birth as 1998, thus making

him about 19 years of age.

4.

On a specific query put to learned counsel for the

petitioners, it has been stated that neither are the petitioners in any

prohibited relationship to each other, nor has any of them been

married earlier. She states that she has obtained specific instructions

from the petitioners in that regard.

5.

Consequently, since protection of life and liberty is a

fundamental right of every citizen enshrined in Article 21 of the

Constitution of India, this petition is disposed of with a direction to

respondents No.2 and 3 to ensure that the lives and liberty of the

petitioners are not put to any harm or threat at the hands of the

aforesaid respondents or at their behest.

6.

However, it is made clear that if any of the averments

made in the petition is found to be incorrect, specifically with regard

to either the petitioners being in any prohibited relationship to each

other, or as regards their previous marital status, or with regard to

their age, this order shall not be construed to be a bar on any

proceedings initiated as per law.

7.

However, since petitioner No.2 is below the legally

marriageable age on the date of the marriage, it is made clear that

proceedings shall be initiated under the provisions of the Prohibition

of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and shall continue as per law.