IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (126)

CRWP-6675-2025 Date of decision : 24.06.2025 Sweety and another ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Ms. Sunita Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab.

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

1. The present Criminal Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing respondents No.2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No.1 was born on 18.06.2006 and petitioner No.2 was born on 16.03.2007. Reliance has been placed upon the Aadhaar Cards (Annexures P-1 and P-2). It is submitted that petitioner No.2 is although major but is not of marriageable age. It is the case of the petitioners that they are unmarried and are living in a “Live in Relationship” out of their free will and without any pressure. It is further submitted that the petitioners have given a detailed representation dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure P-3) to respondent No.4- Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur as they are apprehending harm to their life and liberty and have, thus, sought protection.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case Jashanpreet Kaur and another Vs. State of Punjab and others, reported as 2019(4) RCR (Civil) 183, in which case although, girl therein was aged about 15 years and 8 months and boy was aged about 19 years and 3 months, yet the Coordinate Bench after considering the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was pleased to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners therein.

The relevant portions of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“1 to 5 xxx xxx

6. Facts, as pleaded in the petition, succinctly are that the petitioner No.1, a minor girl born on 04.10.2003 and petitioner No.2, a boy born on 10.03.2000, though a major, but not of marriageable age, purportedly are in love with each other and got married on 17.06.2019at Panchkula according to Hindu Ritesand Ceremonies. Photographs of their marriage have been appended with the petition.

7 to 16. xxx xxx

17. The issue in hand, however, is not marriage of the petitioners, but the deprivation of fundamental right of seeking protection of life and liberty. I have no hesitation to hold that Constitutional Fundamental Right under Article 21 of Constitution of India stands on a much higher pedestal. Being sacrosanct under the Constitutional Scheme it must be protected, regardless of the solemnization of an invalid or void marriage or even the absence of any marriage between the parties.

18. It is the bounden duty of the State as per the Constitutional obligations casted upon it to protect the life and liberty of every citizen. Right to human life is to be treated on much higher pedestal, regardless of a citizen being minor or a major. The mere fact that the petitioners are not of marriageable age would not deprive them of their fundamental right as envisaged in Constitution of India, being citizens of India.

19. In view of the discussion above, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala is directed to verify the contents of the petition particularly the threat perception of the petitioners and thereafter provide necessary protection qua their life and liberty, if deemed fit.

20. It is clarified that this order shall neither be treated as a stamp of this Court qua marriage of the petitioners nor any reflection on the merits of the contentions raised by them in the present petition.

21. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. ”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon the judgment dated 18.05.2021 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRWP-4521-2021 titled as “Pardeep Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and others” in which protection has been granted in a case where the petitioners were living in “Live in Relationsh