IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

127

CRWP-3815-2022(O&M)

Date of decision: 26.04.2022

SUNITA AND ANOTHER

....Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

*****

Present :

Mr. Rajesh Duhan, Advocate

for the petitioners.

Mr. Ashish Yadav, Additional AG Haryana.

Mr. R.K. Agnihotri, Advocate

for the respondent Nos.4 to 6.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. J. (ORAL)

The petitioners namely Sunita and Pradeep have approached this

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking protection of

their life and personal liberty from private respondents Nos 4 to 6.

2.

The contention of the petitioners is that they are major, aged 18 years

and 27 years respectively. In support thereof, copy of the Aadhaar Cards

pertaining to the petitioners have been appended. The petitioners further contend

that they have performed marriage against the wishes of their parents. The

marriage of the petitioners was solemnized on 21.04.2022 at Sri Bhramari Devi

Jan Kalayan Institute (Regd. No.00616) 222, Mansa Devi Market, Sector 4

Panchkula according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. A copy of marriage

SANDAL SHARMA

2022.05.02 16:57

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRWP-3815-2022(O&M)

- 2 -

certificate (Annexure P-4) has also been appended. The petitioners apprehend

threat to their lives and claim that there is a constant danger of being implicated in

a false case.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Pursuant to supply of advance copy, Mr. Ashish Yadav, Additional

AG Haryana has appeared and accepted notice on behalf of respondent-State.

5.

Mr. R.K. Agnihori, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent Nos.4

to 6 and files his power of attorney. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6

contends that the petitioners have concealed vital information from the Court and

that it has been stated by the petitioners that this is their first marriage, whereas the

petitioner No.1 was married earlier on 25.02.2022. He thus submitted that a wrong

averment has been made by the petitioners in the present petition. Reference is

made to the paragraph No.16 of the writ petition, wherein such averment has been

made. He has further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad

High Court in the matter of Asha Devi & Another Vs. State of U.P. And Others

decided on 01.12.2020 in Writ C. No.18743 of 2020. The relevant extract of the

said judgment is reproduced as under:-

16. According to own case of the petitioners, the petitioner no.1

is still a legally wedded wife of one Mahesh Chandra. As per

own alleged application dated 17.09.2020 (as reproduced in

para 6 above), the petitioners are living as husband and wife

and they have sought protection from interference in their

living together as husband and wife. Once the petitioner No.1

is a married woman being wife of one Mahesh Chandra, the act

of petitioners particularly the petitioner No.2, may constitute

an offence under Sections 494/495 I.P.C. Such a relationship

does not fall within the phrase "live-in-relationship" or

"relationship in the nature of marriage". The writ petition has

been filed by the petitioners for protection from interference by

SANDAL SHARMA

2022.05.02 16:57

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRWP-3815-2022(O&M)

- 3 -

others in their living as husband and wife. If the protection as

prayed is granted, it may amount to grant protection against

commission of offences under Sections 494/495 I.P.C.

6.

I have considered the submissions advanced by the counsel appearing

on behalf of the parties and perused the judgment relied upon by the learned

counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 6.

7.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and time again observed that it

is not the Court’s domain to intervene in the matters of choice or suitability of a

marriage/relationship of an individual. In this respect, the concurring judgment

aut