The protection of life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the duty of the State to protect and safeguard all fundamental rights, unless taken away by due process of law.

JUDGMENT

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral) - The petitioners namely Sunita and Pradeep have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking protection of their life and personal liberty from private respondents Nos 4 to 6.

2. The contention of the petitioners is that they are major, aged 18 years and 27 years respectively. In support thereof, copy of the Aadhaar Cards pertaining to the petitioners have been appended. The petitioners further contend that they have performed marriage against the wishes of their parents. The marriage of the petitioners was solemnized on 21.04.2022 at Sri Bhramari Devi Jan Kalayan Institute (Regd. No.00616) 222, Mansa Devi Market, Sector 4 Panchkula according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. A copy of marriagecertificate (Annexure P-4) has also been appended. The petitioners apprehend threat to their lives and claim that there is a constant danger of being implicated in a false case.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Pursuant to supply of advance copy, Mr. Ashish Yadav, Additional AG Haryana has appeared and accepted notice on behalf of respondent-State.

5. Mr. R.K. Agnihori, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent Nos.4 to 6 and files his power of attorney. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6 contends that the petitioners have concealed vital information from the Court and that it has been stated by the petitioners that this is their first marriage, whereas the petitioner No.l was married earlier on 25.02.2022. He thus submitted that a wrong averment has been made by the petitioners in the present petition. Reference is made to the paragraph No.16 of the writ petition, wherein such averment has been made. He has further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the matter of Asha Devi & Another Vs. State of U.P. And Others decided on 01.12.2020 in Writ C. No.18743 of 2020. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

16. According to own case of the petitioners, the petitioner no.l is still a legally wedded wife of one Mahesh Chandra. As per own alleged application dated 17.09.2020 (as reproduced in para 6 above), the petitioners are living as husband and wife and they have sought protection from interference in their living together as husband and wife. Once the petitioner No.l is a married woman being wife of one Mahesh Chandra, the act of petitioners particularly the petitioner No. 2, may constitute an offence under Sections 494/495 I.P.C Such a relationship does not fall within the phrase "live-in-relationship" or "relationship in the nature of marriage". The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for protection from interference byothers in their living as husband and wife. If the protection as prayed is granted, it may amount to grant protection against commission of offences under Sections 494/495 IP. C.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 6.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and time again observed that it is not the Court's domain to intervene in the matters of choice or suitability of a marriage/relationship of an individual. In this respect, the concurring judgment authored by Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan KM. (Criminal Appeal No.366 of 2018 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 09.04.2018), is noteworthy to mention, and thus, the relevant extract thereof reads as under:

"23......The High Court has lost sight of the fact that she is a major, capable of taking her own decisions and is entitled to the right recognised by the Constitution to lead her life exactly as she pleases. The concern of this Court in intervening in this matter is as much about the miscarriage of justice that has resulted in the High Court as much as about the paternalism which underlies the approach to constitutional interpretation reflected in the judgment i