111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRWP No.356 of 2021 (O&M)

DATE OF DECISION: 13.01.2021

Manpreet Kaur and another

…..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana and others

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present:

Mr. Parveen Kumar Rohila, Advocate for the petitioners

..

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral):

Heard through video conferencing.

The present criminal writ petition has been filed under Article

226 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of fundamental right of the

petitioners seeking protection of their life and liberty as enshrined under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

In brief, the relevant facts, as stated in the petition, are that

both the petitioners are major, the date of birth of petitioner No.1 being

31.03.2002 and that of petitioner No.2 being 01.01.2001 (copies of

Aadhaar Cards have been appended as Annexures P-1 and P-2,

respectively). Petitioner No.2 has not attained marriageable age. The

petitioners fell in love with each other and started living in a live-in

relationship against the wishes of respondent Nos.4 to 6 (family members

of petitioner No.1) and their relatives. It is further alleged that the

petitioners are receiving serious threats to their life and liberty at the hands

PARKASH CHAND

2021.01.14 15:56

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRWP No.356 of 2021

- 2 -

of respondent Nos.4 to 6 and they are living in a state of fear and anxiety as

the private respondents are threatening to implicate them in false cases. The

petitioners have also made a representation dated 08.01.2021 (Annexure P-

3) to the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal (respondent No.2) to provide

them security, however, no action has been taken.

The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the

petitioners apprehend grave danger to their life and liberty at the hands of

respondent Nos.4 to 6. However, at this stage, the petitioners would be

satisfied if a direction is given to respondent No.2 to decide the

representation dated 08.01.2021 (Annexure P-3) given by them in a time-

bound manner.

Notice of motion to the official respondents only. In view of

the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the service

on the remaining respondents is dispensed with.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, Deputy

Advocate General, Haryana has joined the

session through

video

conferencing and accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.

In the present case there is an apprehension which has been

expressed by the petitioners which needs to be addressed. Petitioner No.2 is

not of marriageable age, however, has attained the age of majority. Both

the petitioners, who are otherwise major, have taken a step to be in a live-in

relationship. However, it appears that the relationship is not acceptable to

the private respondents and they have been threatening the petitioners.

PARKASH CHAND

2021.01.14 15:56

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRWP No.356 of 2021

- 3 -

In the present case, this Court, without expressing any opinion

regarding the validity of the relationship of the petitioners, is required to

consider whether the apprehension of the petitioners needs to be addressed.

Petitioner No.1 being major has decided to be in a live-in relationship with

petitioner No.2, who is also major though may not be of marriageable age.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that both the petitioners are major and

have decided to live their lives on their own terms. The private respondents

cannot dictate petitioner No.1 as to how and with whom she chooses to

spend her life. The parents cannot compel a child to live a life on their

terms. Every adult individual has a right to live his or her life as he or she

deems fit.

The petitioners are both major and have every right to live

their lives as they desire within the four corners of the law. The society

cannot determine how an individual should live her or his life. The

Constitut