The protection of life and liberty as sacrosanct under the Constitutional Scheme, regardless of the validity of the marriage, and the duty of the State to protect the fundamental rights of every citizen.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Monga, J.

1. Conflict raised herein is the enforcement of fundamental rights of the petitioners to seek protection of their "life and liberty" as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India viz-a-viz a conceded violation of Section 5 (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, inasmuch a girl aged 17 years 6 months and boy aged 20 years and 3 months claim to have married each other having purportedly being in love with each other.

2. Notice of motion at this stage only to the official respondents is being issued. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Additional A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3.

3. Advance copy of the paper book has already been supplied to learned State counsel by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

4. Given the nature of the order being passed, there is no necessity to seek any return by the official respondents or even to serve the private respondents No.4 to 6.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, as also the learned State counsel and without going into the merits of the validity of the marriage, I am of the view that every citizen being entitled to enforcement of fundamental rights as envisaged under Constitution of India, would necessarily entail grant of appropriate protection to the petitioners herein qua their life and liberty as apprehended by them for the reasons stated hereinafter.

6. Facts, as pleaded in the petition, succinctly are that the petitioner No.1, a minor girl born on 22.12.2001 and petitioner No.2, a boy born on 25.02.1999, though major but not of marriageable age, purportedly are in love with each other.

7. Petitioners were known to each other for the last one year. They decided to get married and approached their parents in this regard but parents of petitioner No.1 were against their marriage. Petitioners got married on 19.06.2019 at Kalka according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. Photographs of their marriage have been appended with the petition.

8. Petitioners state that immediately after their marriage they informed parents and relatives of petitioner No.1 who have throughout been against the relationship between them. On being informed, that private respondents have issued threat to them that they will kill both the petitioners by tracing them from wherever they are. Private respondents have also filed a false complaint with the police to harass the petitioners.

9. In the circumstances, the petitioners approached respondent No.2 (Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda) and submitted a representation (Annexure P-4) seeking to safeguard their life and liberty, but no action is being taken on the same.

10. The petitioners state that they are living in constant danger as they have every apprehension that private respondents will catch them and carry out their threats and may go to the extent of even committing their murder. The petitioners are, therefore, running here and there and unable to find any safe place to live in the absence of protection of their life and liberty. Hence the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions to the official respondents to provide protection qua their life and liberty.

11. As already noted, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the validity of the marriage at this stage, I am of the view that what needs to be addressed is the apprehension of the petitioners based on threat to their life and liberty for the reasons/circumstances as narrated in the petition.

12. Controversy that needs adjudication now is whether an appropriate writ/direction or order is warranted to allay the apprehensions of the petitioners for granting protection to them for enforcement of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

13. I am conscious of the fact that neither the girl is major nor of marriageable age, nor even the boy is of marriageable age, even though he is a major. Their marriage, therefore, even if assumed to have taken place according to Hindu Ri