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.2 & 3 to initiate action on the representation dated 08.06.2022 (Annexures P- 1) submitted to the official respondents No.2-Commissioner of Police Ludhiana 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 that the private respondents are forcing to perform the marriage of petitioner No.2 with some boy in Rajasthan who is much older in age and is a drug addict. The said boy is not to the liking of the petitioner No.2 and they had even fixed marriage of petitioner No.2 against her wishes. It has been alleged that currently the minor is living in live-in-relationship with a petitioner No.1-Akash and wants to marry him in future.

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;

(c ) Guardians appointed/declared by the Court;

(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 h