CRWP No. 949 of 2021

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

CRWP-949 of 2021

Date of Decision: 08.02.2021

Vehrag Singh and another

Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others

Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present:

Mr. Bhawesh Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Samina Dhir, DAG, Punjab.

****

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (Oral):

The matter is taken up for hearing through video

conference due to COVID-19 situation.

A direction is sought to Senior Superintendent of Police,

Hoshiarpur and SHO, Police Station Garhdiwala, District Hoshiarpur

to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners from the hands of

private respondents, arrayed as respondents No. 4 to 17.

Petitioner No.1 is 20 years and Petitioner No. 2 is 16

years and 4 months of age. The petitioners want to marry each

other. Petitioner No. 2 is with petitioner No. 1 as they ran away and

are living together in the houses of relatives and friends of petitioner

No. 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the

MANOJ KUMAR

2021.02.08 23:37

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRWP No. 949 of 2021

-2-

petitioners are living together, they have intention to get married. The

submission is that parents of petitioner No. 2 are opposed to the

relationship. He places reliance on the decision of the Supreme

Court in S.Varadarajan v. State of Madras, 1965 AIR (SC 942) to

submit that petitioner No. 2 has right to give consent for going with

petitioner No. 1. It is further submitted that representation dated

28.1.2021 was made to Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur

but same has not been acted upon.

Petitioner No.2 is impleaded through petitioner No. 1. On

a pointed query about maintainability of petition, learned counsel for

the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court

in S.Varadarajan's case (supra) to submit that petitioner No. 2 had

consensually accompanied petitioner No.1.

It is not disputed that petitioner No. 2 is a minor and not

of marriageable age. The relief prayed is against the relatives of

petitioner No.2 but the affidavit supporting the petition is of petitioner

No. 1 alone. There is nothing in the pleadings to substantiate the

threat perception except for the bald statement. It is worth noting that

the representation is dated 28.1.2021. There is no proof of the

representation having been submitted. It is important to note that the

petition itself is dated 28.1.2021.

Before proceeding further, another aspects needs to be

looked into. It would be relevant at this stage to quote Sections 4(b),

6 and 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (for

short, 'the 1956 Act') and Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act,

MANOJ KUMAR

2021.02.08 23:37

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRWP No. 949 of 2021

-3-

1890 (for short, 'the 1890 Act'):

“Sections 4(b) and 6 of the 1956 Act

4. Definitions.- In this Act,--

xx xx xx

(b) “guardian” means a person having the care of

the person of a minor or of his property or of both

his person and property, and includes--

(i) a natural guardian,

(ii) a guardian appointed by the Will of the minor's

father or mother,

(iii) a guardian appointed or declared by a court,

and

(iv) a person empowered to act as such by or

under any enactment relating to any court of

wards;

6. Natural Guardians of a Hindu minor:-

The natural guardians of a Hindu minor, in respect of

the minor’s person as well as in respect of the

minor’s property (excluding his or her undivided

interest in joint family property,) are:––

(a) in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl—the

father, and after him the mother; provided that the

custody of a minor who has not completed the age of

five years shall ordinarily be with the mother ;

(b) in the case of an illegitimate boy or an