SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(P&H) 996

MANOJ BAJAJ
Daya Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners; Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, DAG, Haryana.

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 s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top