Sandeep Kaur and Another vs State of Punjab and Others

Jitendra Chauhan, J.—The learned counsel contends that the petitioners have solemnized marriage but their marriage is opposed by respondent Nos. 4 to 10, who are the family members of petitioner No. 1. However, from the perusal of Annexure P-3, it emerges that petitioner No. 2 is not major for the purpose of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The widowed mother of petitioner No. 2, who is present in the Court, admits the factum of marriage and states that petitioner No. 1 is residing with her as her daughter-in-law.

The learned counsel cites judgment dated 06.12.2010, passed by this Court in CRM-M No. 35410 of 2010, titled ''Neelam Rani and another Vs. State of Haryana and others'', in support of his contention that notwithstanding the dispute about the age of the petitioners, they are nevertheless entitled to protection of their life and liberty.

Notice of motion.

At the asking of the Court, Mr. Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. A complete copy of the paper book has been furnished to the learned State counsel, in the Court.

Without expressing any opinion with regard to validity of marriage and on the merits of the assertions made in the petition, this Court, in the circumstances, is of the opinion that the life and liberty of the petitioners, which is threatened at the hands of private respondents, deserves to be protected.

Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No. 2-Commissioner of Police, Amritsar, that in case the petitioners move an application before him for protection of their life and liberty, he will look into the matter and ensure that no harm is caused to the petitioners.

Disposed of. A copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner, under the signatures of the Special Secretary of this Bench.