133

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRWP-3689-2021

Date of Decision: April 16, 2021

Raj Singh and another

...Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

Present:

Mr.Jatinder Singh Gill, Advocate

for the petitioners.

****

ARCHANA PURI, J.

The matter has been taken up through video conferencing in the

light of COVID-19 pandemic.

Through the present petition, the petitioners have made prayer

for seeking protection, as threat is extended to them, at the behest of private

respondents No.4 to 10, as both the petitioners have solemnized marriage

against their wishes.

Notice of motion.

Ms.Monika Jalota, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of

official respondents.

In the petition, it is averred that date of birth of petitioner No.1

is 12.11.2000 and he is 20 years of age. The date of birth of petitioner No.2

is 28.10.1999 and she is 21 years of age. Further, it is submitted that both

the petitioners know each other from the last three years and decided to

marry. When they disclosed about their wish to solemnize marriage to their

VINEET GULATI

2021.04.16 21:12

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

CRWP No.3689 of 2021

-2-

family members, it was objected by private respondents and even, private

respondents tried to solemnize marriage of petitioner No.2 against her

wishes with someone else. However, petitioners have solemnized marriage

on 12.04.2021 at Gurudwara Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji, Village Valle Shahe

Hihar, Teshil and District Fazilka. Even, photographs relating to the

performance of marriage ceremonies have been annexed with the petition.

After marriage, they are residing together as husband and wife. However,

marriage of the petitioners is not acceptable to the family members of

petitioner No.2 and now, the petitioners apprehend danger to their lives and

personal liberty at the hands of respondents No.4 to 10. Also, it is

submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that representation dated

13.04.2021, copy whereof is Annexure P-5, had been sent to Senior

Superintendent of Police, Fazilka-respondent No.2, for extending protection

to their lives and liberty but no action has been initiated upon the same.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has pointed out that

petitioner No.1 Raj Singh, is though major, but he is not of marriageable

age. As such, it is submitted that no protection can be extended to the

petitioners. However, learned State counsel has further assured that if so

directed, then appropriate action on the representation (Annexure P-5) can

be taken.

Very true, as so pointed out by learned State counsel that

petitioner No.2-Raj Singh, whose date of birth is 12.11.2000, is though

major, but not of marriageable age but however, the controversy that needs

adjudication now is whether appropriate writ/direction or order is warranted

to allay the apprehensions of the petitioners for granting protection to them

for enforcement of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the

VINEET GULATI

2021.04.16 21:12

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

CRWP No.3689 of 2021

-3-

Constitution of India. In this regard, suffice to make reference to the

decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case titled as

Rajveer Kaur and another vs. State of Punjab, CWP-17025-2019, decided

on 21.06.2019, wherein, while adjudicating with the question relating to the

girl and boy, who were not of marriageable age, it was observed as herein

given:-

“14. A perusal of Section 5, ibid leaves no manner of doubt

that one of the essential conditions of Hindu Marriage Act is

that the bridegroom must be above 21 years and the bride

above 18 years. However, at the same time, Section 11 of the

Hindu Marriage Act which declares certain marriages, which

are in contravention of Section 5 (supra), to be void, but