Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 112

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.
Khushpreet Singh & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CRWP-6040-2022(O&M)
Decided On : 22-06-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Shubham Goyal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Amarjit Kaur Khurana, DAG Punjab, for the Respondent

The fundamental right to seek protection of life and liberty extends to minors, and the court has a duty to ensure their welfare and safety.

Headnote:
Minor - Live-in-relationship - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, Guardians and Wards Act 1890, Indian Majority Act 1875, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 - The court examined the issue of protection of life and liberty of minors in the context of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and held that the fundamental right to seek protection of their lives and liberties cannot be denied even if the marriage is invalid. The court also emphasized the need to protect minors from forced marriage and sexual offenses, and directed the Child Welfare Committee to ensure the welfare and safety of the minor.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, a minor girl and her partner, sought protection from threats by private respondents and requested directions to officials to protect their lives and liberty. The minor girl intended to marry her partner upon attaining the age of majority and was living in a live-in-relationship with him.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the minor's fundamental right to seek protection of her life and liberty cannot be denied, and emphasized the need to protect minors from forced marriage and sexual offenses. The court directed the Child Welfare Committee to ensure the welfare and safety of the minor.
Issues: The issues involved protection of the minor's life and liberty, validity of live-in-relationship, and the applicability of various acts related to guardianship and protection of minors.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the fundamental right to seek protection of life and liberty extends to minors, and emphasized the need to protect them from forced marriage and sexual offenses. The court also directed the Child Welfare Committee to ensure the welfare and safety of the minor.
Final Decision: The court directed the Child Welfare Committee to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders to ensure the welfare and safety of the minor, and also directed the concerned officials to take necessary steps to protect the petitioners from any physical harm.

JUDGMENT

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral). - The instant criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of directions to the officials respondents No.1 to 3 to initiate action on the representation dated 18.06.2022 (Annexures P- 3) submitted to the official respondents No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police Rupnagar for protecting of the life and liberty of the petitioners and with a further direction that the private respondents should not interfere in the personal life of the petitioners.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the petitioner No.2 is a minor and wishes to marry petitioner No.1 of her own accord upon attaining the age of majority. It has been alleged that currently the minor is living in live-in-relationship with petitioner No.1-Khushpreet Singh and both the petitioners are running pillar to post to save their lives from the hands of respondent Nos.4 to 15. It is further submitted that the petitioners are not earlier married to any other person.

3. Reference can be made to certain orders/judgements of this Court passed in CRWP-2238-2021 titled as Priyanka & Another Vs. State of Haryana & Ors decided on 05.03.2021, wherein the minor who was in a live-in-relationship was extended an indulgence; a similar order had been passed in CRWP-6660-2020 titled as Jyoti Vs. State of Haryana & Ors decided on 01.09.2020; CRWP-3990- 2020 titled as Roopa Vs. State of Haryana & Ors decided on 22.06.2020; CRWP- 1525-2020 titled as Sarabjeet Kaur & Another Vs. State of Punjab & Ors decided on 12.02.2020; CRWP-29048-2019 titled as Navpreet Kaur & Another Vs. State of Punjab & Ors decided on 04.10.2019. A reference can also be made to the judgement of this Court reported as 2019(4) RCR (Civil) 183 titled as Jashanpreet Kaur & Another Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.

4. The gist of the aforesaid orders/judgements was to the effect that merely because the petitioners are not of marriageable age, it would not deprive them of their fundamental right to seek protection of their lives and liberties. The Court examined the issue in the context of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and held that merely because the petitioners are not of the marriageable age and the marriage performed, if any, would be hit by Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, the same being only a civil consequence qua the validity of the marriage, their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied as they stand on a much higher pedestal. Life and liberty of the persons is sacrosanct being integral to their being, it ought to be protected regardless of solemnization of invalid or void marriage or even in the absence of any marriage amongst the parties. In all the said matters, the respective SSPs/SPs were directed to verify the threat perception and to take necessary steps to provide protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners, if deemed fit and necessary.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents appended by them with the petition . The documents are in the nature of documents related to date of birth and a representation submitted to the concerned authorities.

6. Law recognizes the guardians of following types:-

(a) Natural guardian;

(b) Testamentary Guardian;

(d) a person empowered to act as such by or under any enactment relating to any Court of Wards.

7. However, in the pre-1956 Hindu law, there also existed a guardian by affinity, who happened to be the guardian of a minor widow. As per the position in law as it existed, then the husband's relation, if there existed any, within the degree of sapinda were the guardians of a minor widow in preference to her father and his relations. There is yet another concept of de-facto Guardian, who happens to be a person who take continuous interest in the welfare of a minor's person or in the management of administration of his property