Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amandeep Kaur And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 3 January, 2025
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000137
CRWP-18-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRWP-18-2025
Date of decision : 03.01.2025
Amandeep Kaur and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Ms.Amarjeet Kaur, Advocate for
Mr.Sukhbir Maandi, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr.Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a Criminal Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of direction to respondent nos.2 and 3 to
protect the life and liberty of the petitioners so that no harm is caused to
them.
2. Petitioner no.1 is stated to be born on 01.01.1990 and for this
purpose, reference has been made to her Aadhar card (Annexure P-1).
Petitioner no.2 is stated to have been born on 01.05.1980 and for the said
purpose, reference has been made to his Aadhar card (Annexure P-2). It is
further submitted that the petitioners are major and in a “Live in
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 04-01-2025 05:55:55 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000137
CRWP-18-2025 -2-
Relationship”. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
petitioner no.1 is married with respondent no. 4. It is further submitted that
petitioner no.1 has not taken any legal divorce from respondent no.4, and
who is living with petitioner no.2 in “Live in Relationship” out of their free
will and consent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in judgment dated 18.05.2021 passed in CRWP-4521-
2021 titled as “Pardeep Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and
others” has granted protection in a case where the petitioners were living in
“Live in Relationship”.
4. Learned counsel has further relied upon an order passed by a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court dated 03.09.2021, passed in CRWP-7874-2021
titled as “Paramjit Kaur and another vs. State of Punjab and others” as per
which although the divorce petition filed by petitioner no.2 therein was
dismissed, yet this Court had granted protection to the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioners have
given a representation dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure P-3) to respondent no.2
and they would be satisfied in case respondent no.2 is directed to look into
the said representation and after considering threat perception to the
petitioners, to take appropriate action.
6. Notice of motion to respondents no.1 to 3 only.
7. Mr.Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of
respondents no.1 to 3 and has stated that he has no objection in case
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 04-01-2025 05:55:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000137
CRWP-18-2025 -3-
respondent no.2 is directed to look into the representation of the petitioners
on the aspect of threat perception and to take appropriate action, in
accordance with law.
8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. In Pardeep Singh‘s (supra), a co-ordinate Bench of this Court
has held as under:-
“The Constitution of India is the Supreme Law of the land.
Right to life and liberty is enshrined therein and is treated as a
basic feature. The said right includes the right of an individual to
full development of his/her potential in accordance with his/her
choice and wish and for such purpose, he/she is entitled to choose
a partner of his/her choice. The individual also has the right to
formalize the relationship with the partner through marriage or to
adopt the non-formal approach of a live-inrelationship. The
concept of live-in-relationships has crept into our society from
western nations and initially, found acceptance in the metropolitan
cities, probably because, individuals felt that formalization of a
relationship through marriage was not necessary for complete
fulfillment. Education played a great role in development of this
concept. Slowly, the concept has percolated into small towns and
villages also as is evident from this petition. This shows that social
acceptance for live-in-relationships is on the increase. In law, such
a relationship is not prohibited nor does it amount to commission
of any offence and thus, in my considered view such persons are
entitled to equal protection of laws as any other citizen of the
country. The law postulates that the life and liberty of every
individual is precious and must be protected irrespective of
individual views.
Let us examine the issue from another view-point. The
Constitutional Courts grant protection to couples, who have
married against the wishes of their respective parents. They seek3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 04-01-2025 05:55:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000137CRWP-18-2025 -4-
protection of life and liberty from their parents and family
members, who disapprove of the alliance. An identical situation
exits where the couple has entered into a live-in-relationship. The
only difference is that the relationship is not universally accepted.
Would that make any difference ? In my considered opinion, it
would not. The couple fears for their safety from relatives in both
situations and not from the society. They are thus, entitled to the
same relief. No citizen can be permitted to take law in his own
hands in a country governed by Rule of Law.
The petition is accordingly, disposed of with direction to
respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 9.5.2021
(Annexure P3) and to provide appropriate protection, if found
necessary. It shall be ensured that no harm comes either to the
lives or liberty of the petitioners.”
10. Thus, this Court is of the view that even if the petitioners are
living in a “Live in Relationship”, they are entitled to protection of life and
liberty. With respect to the aspect of petitioners not being divorced, it is
relevant to refer to a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated
03.09.2021 passed in LPA-769-2021 titled as “Ishrat Bano and another vs.
State of Punjab and others“. Ishrat Bano (petitioner therein) had filed
Criminal Writ Petition no.7903 of 2021 which was dismissed by the learned
Single Judge of this Court. The relevant portion of the order passed by the
learned Single Judge dated 01.09.2021 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“Prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a direction to
the official respondents to protect the life and liberty of the
petitioners at the hands of respondents No.5 to 9.
Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners
have performed the marriage and are apprehending threat to their
life and liberty at the hands of respondents No.5 to 9. It is further
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 04-01-2025 05:55:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000137
CRWP-18-2025 -5-
submitted that previously, the petitioner No.2 was married to one
Alia Hasan and the marriage was annulled by way of divorce
documents dated 26.07.2018, 27.08.2018 and 27.09.2018 i.e. vide
03 divorce deeds executed by petitioner No.2 – Aslam Khan
himself.
A perusal of these 03 divorce deeds relied upon by the
petitioners reveals that these are one sided documents prepared by
petitioner No.2 and there are two common witnesses namely
Shehnaz Ali and Feroz Khan. There is no signature of the first wife
of petitioner No.2 namely Alia Hasan, giving her consent to such
divorce. Even otherwise, a perusal of these divorce deeds further
reveal that the marriage of petitioner No.2 was performed with
Alia Hasan on 06.07.2013 and out of the said wedlock two
daughters namely Sohalia Aslam and Amima Aslam were born,
who are alive and residing with the first wife of petitioner No.2 i.e.
Alia Hasan.
Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that after
this one sided customary divorce, the petitioner No.2 has now
performed marriage with petitioner No.1 on 20.08.2021. The Co-
ordinate Bench while taking up this petition has directed the
petitioners to inform the Court as to how much amount, the
petitioner No.2 is ready to give to his earlier wife to enable her to
maintain herself.
Despite taking 02 dates, no such proposal has come.
This Court cannot ignore the fact that the Court being legal
guardian of the 02 minor girls, who are living at the mercy of their
mother – Alia Hasan, as the petitioner No.2 is not only claiming to
have divorced his first wife Alia Hasan but he has also refused to
maintain and take care of the upbringing of his 02 minor daughters
aged 4½ years and 02 years.
On the face of it, the present petition is nothing but a ploy
to seek a seal of this Court regarding the lustful and adulterous life
of petitioner No.2 with petitioner No.1 and the Court cannot be a
party to the same. The arguments of petitioner No.2 that he has a
right to perform second marriage under Muslim Law is
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 04-01-2025 05:55:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000137
CRWP-18-2025 -6-
misconceived as this Court instead of taking an academic view is
more concerned about the welfare of 02 minor girls as it is clear
that petitioner No.2 has intentionally failed to maintain his first
wife and 02 minor daughters.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed with
Rs.1,00,000/- costs to be paid to Alia Hasan.”
A perusal of above would show that since the Court had
primarily observed that the divorce documents were one sided documents,
thus, prima-facie it appeared that the divorce was not legal. The matter was
taken up in appeal and the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated
03.09.2021 passed in LPA-769-2021 titled as “Ishrat Bano and another vs.
State of Punjab and others” held as under:-
“The aspect which we are considering and dealing with is with
regard to the threat to the life and liberty to the appellants as has
been asserted by them. No doubt, in case a criminal case is
registered against any of the parties, the law should take its own
course, however, the life and liberty of any person who has
approached the Court with such a grievance need to be taken care
of and the protection be provided as permissible in law. No person
can be permitted or allowed to take law in his hands and therefore,
keeping in view the said aspect, we dispose of the present appeal
by observing that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Maler
Kotla, shall take into consideration the representation dated
17.08.2021 (Annexure P-5) submitted by the appellants and if some
substance is found therein, take appropriate steps in accordance
with law to ensure that the life and liberty is
not jeopardized of the appellants at the hands of the private
respondents. This direction shall not be construed in any manner
to restrain the official respondents to proceed against the
appellants in case there is some criminal case registered against
them. The law shall take its own course and it shall be open to the6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 04-01-2025 05:55:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000137CRWP-18-2025 -7-
authorities/investigating agency to proceed against the appellants,
if required in law and in accordance thereto.”
11. Thus, the Division Bench after considering the aspect of
protection of life and liberty being of paramount consideration and without
getting into the issue as to whether the relationship between the parties was
legal or not, however, granted them protection of life and liberty.
12. In view of the same, it goes without saying that protection of life
and liberty is a basic feature of the Constitution of India. Every person, more
so, a major, has right to live his / her life with a person of his / her choice at
any rate whenever this Court, prima-facie, is satisfied that on account of some
relatives/ persons being unhappy with the relationship between the petitioners
could cause harm to the life and liberty of the petitioners, and in such
circumstances, the Courts are then required to pass necessary directions for
their protection.
13. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances and
without commenting upon the legality of the relationship or expressing any
opinion on merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the
present petition with a direction to respondent no.2 to consider the
representation dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure P-3) and to assess the threat
perception to the petitioners and after considering the same, respondent no.2
shall take appropriate action in accordance with law.
14. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with abovesaid
directions.
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 04-01-2025 05:55:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000137
CRWP-18-2025 -8-
15. It is, however, clarified that this order shall not debar the State
from proceeding against the petitioners, if involved in any other case.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
January 03, 2025
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 04-01-2025 05:55:56 :::