The fundamental right to protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India must be upheld, regardless of the validity of the marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT :

ARCHANA PURI, J.

1. The matter has been taken up through video conferencing in the light of COVID-19 pandemic.

2. Through the present petition, the petitioners have made prayer for seeking protection, as threat is extended to them, at the behest of private respondents No.4 to 10, as both the petitioners have solemnized marriage against their wishes.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Ms.Monika Jalota, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of official respondents.

5. In the petition, it is averred that date of birth of petitioner No.1 is 25.05.1999 and she is 21 years of age. The date of birth of petitioner No.2 is 23.08.2001 and he is about 20 years of age. Further, it is submitted that both the petitioners fell in love with each other and decided to marry. When they disclosed about their wish to solemnize marriage to their family members, it was objected by private respondents. However, petitioners have solemnized marriage on 09.04.2021 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Even, photographs relating to the performance of marriage ceremonies have been annexed with the petition. After marriage, they are residing together as husband and wife. However, marriage of the petitioners is not acceptable to the family members of petitioner No.1 and now, the petitioners apprehend danger to their lives and personal liberty at the hands of respondents No.4 to 10. Also, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that representation dated 10.04.2021, copy whereof is Annexure P-5, had been sent to Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala-respondent No.2, for extending protection to their lives and liberty but no action has been initiated upon the same.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel has pointed out that petitioner No.2 Randeep Singh, is though major, but he is not of marriageable age. As such, it is submitted that no protection can be extended to the petitioners. However, learned State counsel has further assured that if so directed, then appropriate action on the representation (Annexure P-5) can be taken.

7. Very true, as so pointed out by learned State counsel that petitioner No.2-Randeep Singh, whose date of birth is 23.08.2001, is though major, but not of marriageable age but however, the controversy that needs adjudication now is whether 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. In this regard, suffice to make reference to the decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case titled as Rajveer Kaur and another vs. State of Punjab, CWP-17025-2019, decided on 21.06.2019, wherein, while adjudicating with the question relating to the girl and boy, who were not of marriageable age, it was observed as herein given:-

“14. A perusal of Section 5, ibid leaves no manner of doubt that one of the essential conditions of Hindu Marriage Act is that the bridegroom must be above 21 years and the bride above 18 years. However, at the same time, Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act which declares certain marriages, which are in contravention of Section 5 (supra), to be void, but precludes a marriage solemnized in contravention of Sub Section (iii) of Section 5, ibid from the purview of being regarded as void or invalid.”

8. Furthermore, in the aforesaid decision, reliance was also placed upon the Division Bench judgment rendered by Delhi High Court, in case titled as Jitender Kumar Sharma Vs. State and Another, reported as 2001 (7) AD (Delhi) 785. The relevant observations reads as herein given:-

“It is true that one of the conditions of a hindu marriage is that the bride should have completed 18 years age and the bridegroom, 21 years. But, does this mean that a marriage where this twin condition as to ages is not satisfied is, ipso facto, invalid or void? An examination of Section 11 of the HMA would seem to suggest otherwise. The said provision