IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 20.10.2025 Saloni Lagwal and another ..... Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA ***

Present :- Mr. Siddarth, Advocate for the petitioners.

Through video conferencing.

Mr. Satnam Preet Singh Chauhan, DAG, Punjab.

***

Deepinder Singh Nalwa, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioners have filed present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing respondents No.2 and 3 to protect life and liberty of petitioners from the hands of private respondents No. 4 to 7, not to interfere in their personal life and liberty.

2. It is submitted that both petitioners are major. As per copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioner No. 1 (Annexure P-1), her date of birth is 12.11.2004. On the other hand, as per copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioner No.2 (Annexure P-2), his date of birth is 17.03.2000. They had performed marriage on 16.10.2025. Copy of Certificate of Marriage is Annexure P-3 and photographs regarding performing of their marriage are Annexure P-4. Petitioners also moved representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, Punjab which is Annexure P-5. Petitioners had performed marriage without consent and wishes of family members/relatives of petitioner No.1 and as such, they are receiving threats from respondents No.

4 to 7.

3. Notice of motion to official respondents only.

4. Upon notice, Mr. Satnam Preet Singh Chauhan, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3-State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to supply a complete copy of paper-book to learned State counsel during the course of the day.

6. Considering nature of litigation, no purpose would be served by serving notice to private respondents.

7. I have considered the facts narrated in petition, according to which both petitioners are major and they have performed marriage against wishes of family members/relatives of petitioner No.1, as a result they are apprehending threats from the hand of respondents No. 4 to 7. It is duty of police to protect life and liberty of petitioners. Therefore, respondent No.2 is directed to consider representation of petitioners dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure P-5) and protect life and liberty of petitioners from the hands of respondents No.4 to 7, considering threat perception, with further direction to maintain their privacy and dignity.

8. Aforesaid protection order will have no bearing on legality and validity of marriage and it will not protect them in case there is any violation of law or pending legal proceedings.

9. Petition is accordingly disposed of.

(DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA)

20.10.2025 JUDGE Ramandeep Singh

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable : Yes/No