123

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRWP-230-2022(O&M)

Date of decision : 12.01.2022

Sheetal and another

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and others

... Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present:

Mr. D.P.S. Bajwa, 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.

the date of birth of

petitioner No.1 is 08.05.2003 (copy of the Aadhaar card is appended as

Annexure P-1) and that of petitioner No.2 is 05.05.2001 (copy of the

Aadhaar card is appended as Annexure P-2). Petitioner No.2 is three

months and two weeks short of turning 21 years. It has further been averred

that both the petitioners have developed a liking for each other and decided

to solemnize their marriage. It has further been averred that the petitioners

have tried their level best to convince their parents, however, the parents

YOGESH SHARMA

2022.01.13 10:54

I attest to the accuracy of this order.

Punjab and Haryana High Court at

Chandigarh

CRWP-230-2022(O&M)

-2-

refused to accept their alliance and rather started threatening the petitioners

that they would be eliminated. Both the petitioners belong to different castes

and hence apprehend danger to their life and liberty. The petitioners

solemnized their marriage on 07.01.2022 in accordance with Hindu Rites

and Rituals. Since the petitioners are apprehending danger to their life and

liberty, a representation was also sent to respondent No.2 on 07.01.2022

(Annexure P-5). However, no action has been taken qua the same.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that at this

stage the petitioners would be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondent

No.2 to take a decision on the representation dated 07.01.2022 (Annexure

P-5) in accordance with law.

he service on

respondent Nos.4 to 9 is dispensed with, at this stage, as the matter is not

being decided on merits.

In the present case this Court, without expressing any opinion

on the validity of the marriage of the petitioners, needs to consider as to

whether the apprehension of the petitioners needs to be addressed.

This Court is aware of the fact that the date of birth of petitioner

No.1 is 08.05.2003 and she is major and of marriageable age. However, the

date of birth of petitioner No.2 is 05.05.2001. Though he is major, but is not

yet of marriageable age as envisaged in Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage

YOGESH SHARMA

2022.01.13 10:54

I attest to the accuracy of this order.

Punjab and Haryana High Court at

Chandigarh

CRWP-230-2022(O&M)

-3-

Act, 1955. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of

“Jatinder Kumar Sharma V/s State and another” reportedas 2010 SCC

Online Delhi 2705, dealt with the complex issue regarding the marriage

between two people ineligible to be married as envisaged under Section

5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In para 15, it was held by the

Division Bench as under:

“15. Returning to the facts of the present case, we find

that, merely on account of contravention of clause (iii)

of section 5 of the HMA, Poonam's marriage with

Jitender is neither void under the HMA nor under the

Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. It is, however,

voidable, as now all child marriages are, at the option

of both Poonam and Jitender, both being covered by the

word 'child' at the time of their marriage. But, neither

seeks to exercise this option and both want to reinforce

and strengthen their marital bond by living together. We

also find that stronger punishments for offences under