Proper representation of minors and evidence of threat are essential in petitions seeking protection for live-in-relationships involving minors. Additionally, the court highlighted the issue of child marriage and urged the states to consider declaring child marriages void ab initio.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Bajaj, J. - The petitioners, who are yet to attain the marriageable age, have approached this court by way of this criminal writ petition under Article 226 Constitution of India for issuance of directions to the official respondent Nos.2 to 4 for protection of their life and liberty from their estranged family members, who are opposing their live-in-relationship.

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of this petition are that petitioner No.1-Daya Ram born on 18.04.2001 (20 years and 2 months old) and petitioner No.2-Reenu born on 25.10.2006 (14 years and 8 months old), knew each other for the last one year, who with the passage of time fell in love, but the parents of Reenu opposed their relationship. As parents of Reenu were making arrangements to solemnize her marriage with a boy of their choice and upon learning this, she requested them not to do so, however, the parents remained adament on their decision. The petitioner No.2 left her house on 01.06.2021 and contacted petitioner No.l and decided to reside together in live-in-relationship till they attain the marriageable age. As per pleadings, it is apprehended that the parents of petitioner No.2 would not spare them as they received continuous threats, whereupon they sent a representation dated 03.06.2021 (Annexure P-3) to the Superintendent of Police, Sirsa by post, and prayed for stern action against the parents of Reenu. Since the representation has failed to evoke any response from the official respondents, as till date no protection has been provided, therefore, the petitioners have approached this court for issuance of necessary directions.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are mature enough to understand good and bad, who are in love with each other and have decided to marry, but their proposal was turned down by the parents and the other relatives of Reenu, so they were left with no other alternative but to live together in live-in-relationship. He submits that till date, there is no physical intimacy between the petitioners as they are waiting to attain the statutory marriageable age, therefore, the private respondents have no right to interfere in their life. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the decision of this court rendered in Preeti and another Versus State of Haryana and others and Soniya and another Versus State of Haryana and others Annexures P-4 and P-5 respectively.

4. At the time of hearing, learned counsel has also produced the copies of decision dated 03.06.2021 in Seema Kaur and another Versus State of Punjab and others as well as the order dated 04.06.2021 of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Gurwinder Singh and another Versus The State of Punjab and others (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl. No. 4028 of 2021) and contended that in view of the guarantee provided by Article 21 Constitution of India, their right to life cannot be put in danger and prays for issuance of necessary directions to official respondents to provide security to the petitioners.

5. The above prayer has been vehemently opposed by Mr.Sukhdeep Parmar, learned State counsel, who is assisted by SI Devi Lal, on the ground that the petitioners have approached this court without a valid cause of action and this petition is not maintainable. According to him, petitioner No.2 is a minor, who was removed from the lawful custody of her natural guardians by petitioner No.l and on the basis of the complaint given by her father (respondent No.5), a case FIR No.200 dated 23.05.2021, under Sections 363, 366-A, 379 and 120-B IPC, already stands registered against Daya Ram and others at Police Station, Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan). Learned State counsel has produced the copy of the said FIR to show that Daya Ram along with others is an accused and is wanted by the police, so no indulgence is warranted by this court. He prays that the writ petition be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for