SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 86723

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sanjay Vashisth, J
Priyanka – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRWP-6719-2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jagjeet Beniwal
For the Respondents: Amish Sharma

The High Court may direct state authorities to provide police protection to couples who have married against family wishes, provided such directions do not constitute a judicial validation of the marriage or impede separate legal proceedings.

Headnote:The petitioners, having married against their families' wishes, sought police protection for their lives and liberty invoking Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. They alleged threats from private respondents and submitted a formal representation to the police authorities. The Court determined that while it is mandated to ensure safety, such orders do not endorse the validity of the marriage or prevent any civil or criminal litigation arising from the union. The central issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to state protection given the alleged threat to their lives and liberty. The court reasoned that in accordance with the fundamental right to life, state authorities must evaluate threat perceptions impartially without validating the marital status of the parties. The petition was disposed of with a direction to the concerned Superintendent of Police to examine the representation and take necessary measures to ensure the petitioners' safety if a genuine threat exists.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek state protection for their life and liberty post-marriage. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court directs police to evaluate threat perception without validating the marriage. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. Prayer in the instant petition, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of direction to the official respondents to provide protection of lives and liberty to the petitioners, who have married against the wishes of the private respondents.

The details, relevant for decision of the present petition, are tabulated as under:-

Petitioner No. 1 Petitioner No. 2
Name(s) Priyanka Sachin
Age (in years) 20 years 21 years
Date of marriage 28.05.2026
Rite Hindu Rites
Representation dated 02.06.2026(P-4)
Submitted to Respondents No. 2 and 3
Family members arrayed as Respondents No. 4 to 8

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have solemnized marriage against the wishes of their family members, who are threatening and interfering in the matrimonial life of the petitioners. It is the first marriage of both the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are seeking protection in that regard and have approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition. They have also submitted a representation dated 02.06.2026(P-4), to respondent No.2-Superintendent of Police, Charkhi Dadri, Haryana, wherein, they have expressed their apprehension.

3. Notice of motion to the official respondents only.

4. On asking of the Court, learned State counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent – State. Let requisite copies of the complete paper book be supplied to learned State counsel during course of the day.

In view of the foregoing, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No. 2-TheSuperintendent of Police, Charkhi Dadri, to examine the representation dated 02.06.2026(P-4) concerning the alleged threat perception. It is noticed that, as per the status report, no threat perception has been observed. Nevertheless, if any substance is found in the representation, Respondent shall take necessary measures in accordance with the law to ensure that the lives and liberty of the petitioners are not endangered by the private respondents.

It is further clarified that, while considering the petitioners’ representation, their credentials shall also be duly examined.

5. However, this direction shall not be construed as validating the marriage allegedly solemnized between the parties, nor shall it affect any civil or criminal proceedings that may be initiated in the matter in accordance with law.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top