CRWP-9611-2021

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

111

CRWP-9611-2021

Date of Decision: 08.10.2021

Roopa and another

...... Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others

......... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH

Present :

Ms. Harpreet Kaur , Advocate,

for the petitioners.

*****

AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (ORAL)

By this petition, filed under the provisions of Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioners seek issuance of a direction to

respondents no.2 and 3, to protect their life and liberty, at the hands of

respondents no.4 to 6, with a further prayer made for a direction to

respondent no.2 to consider and decide the representation, dated 05.10.2021,

made by petitioner no.1.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per her

instructions neither of the petitioners is married nor are they in any

prohibited sapinda relationship to each other.

However upon query to her, as to why they are not getting

married to each other rather than living in a live-in relationship (though

obviously if they both are adults there may be no legal bar to that), she

expresses her ignorance on that question.

VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI

2021.10.13 12:25

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRWP-9611-2021

-2-

A perusal of the petition shows that the petitioners have stated

in paragraphs 5 and 6 that they had fallen in love with each other and having

been in a relationship with each other, they want to continue to live with

each other.

No firm proof of age of either of the petitioners has been

annexed with the petition, with only a copy of the Aadhar Card of petitioner

no.2 having been annexed therewith, alongwith an affidavit of petitioner

no.1, with it stated that they are 27 and 26 years of age respectively.

Be that as it may, this only being a petition seeking protection

of life and liberty of the petitioners which is a basic fundamental right

enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this petition is disposed

of with a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Ambala and the SHO,

Police Station Sadar Ambala City (on the oral contention of learned counsel

for the petitioners that respondent no.3 should actually be read as SHO,

Police Station Sadar, Ambala City), to ensure that their life is duly protected

at the hands of respondents no.4 to 6, or any other person; and as regards

liberty, naturally that would be protected as per law.

It is to be also observed by this court that unless the petitioners

can be shown to be any prohibited sapinda relationship to each other and

thereby are prohibited, by any law in force, to be in a live-in relationship

with each other, if they are otherwise adults, even though they may not have

married each other, as regards protection of life and liberty, that would be

their basic fundamental right; with it further to be observed that if the

VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI

2021.10.13 12:25

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRWP-9611-2021

-3-

petitioners are found to be married to some other persons, protection of life

and liberty ordered by this court would obviously not affect the civil rights

of any spouse seeking restitution of conjugal rights/maintenance etc., which

proceedings, if at all instituted by any such spouse (if existent), would

proceed on their own merits.

(AMOL RATTAN SINGH)

JUDGE

08.10.2021

adhikari

Whether speaking/reasoned

Yes/No

Whether Reportable

Yes/No

VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI

2021.10.13 12:25

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document