Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pallavi And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 1 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000078
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
120
CRWP-12671-2024
Date of decision: 01.01.2025
PALLAVI AND ANOTHER
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Present : Mr. Pal Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Balwinder Singh, AAG, Punjab.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. J. (ORAL)
The instant criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India for issuance of directions to the officials respondents
No.2 and 3 for providing protection of lives and liberty to the petitioners at the
behest of respondents No. 4 and 5.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended
that the petitioner No.1 being minor is represented through her next friend i.e
petitioner No.2-Gurakshdeep Singh. The father/respondent No.4 and
mother/respondent No.5 had beaten and pressurized the petitioner No.1 to marry
with a man, who is more than 8/9 years older than her. However, the petitioner
No.1 did not want to marry the said man. On 09.11.2024, the private respondents
No.4 and 5 again badly beat the petitioner No.1 and threw her out of home and
also made her video. The petitioner No.1 stayed here and there in order to save
1 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 02-01-2025 23:01:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000078
CRWP-12671-2024 -2 –
her life. The petitioner No.1 also sent a representation to respondent No.2-Senior
Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar to protect her life and liberty and also to take
legal action upon respondents No.4 and 5.
3. Reference can be made to certain orders/judgements of this Court
passed in CRWP-2238-2021 titled as Priyanka & Another Vs. State of Haryana &
Ors decided on 05.03.2021, wherein the minor who was in a live-in-relationship
was extended an indulgence; a similar order had been passed in CRWP-6660-2020
titled as Jyoti Vs. State of Haryana & Ors decided on 01.09.2020; CRWP-3990-
2020 titled as Roopa Vs. State of Haryana & Ors decided on 22.06.2020; CRWP-
1525-2020 titled as Sarabjeet Kaur & Another Vs. State of Punjab & Ors decided
on 12.02.2020. A reference can also be made to the judgement of this Court
reported as 2019(4) RCR (Civil) 183 titled as Jashanpreet Kaur & Another Vs.
State of Punjab & Ors. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has also decided the
similar issue in CRWP-11640-2024 vide order dated 09.12.2024 titled as
“Prabhsimran Kaur and another versus State of Punjab and others“.
4. The gist of the aforesaid orders/judgements was to the effect that
merely because the petitioners are not of marriageable age, it would not deprive
them of their fundamental right to seek protection of their lives and liberties. The
Court examined the issue in the context of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and held
that merely because the petitioners are not of the marriageable age and the
marriage performed, if any, would be hit by Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage
Act 1955, the same being only a civil consequence qua the validity of the
marriage, their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be
2 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 02-01-2025 23:01:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000078
CRWP-12671-2024 -3 –
denied as they stand on a much higher pedestal. Life and liberty of the persons is
sacrosanct being integral to their being, it ought to be protected regardless of
solemnization of invalid or void marriage or even in the absence of any marriage
amongst the parties. In all the said matters, the respective SSPs/SPs were directed
to verify the threat perception and to take necessary steps to provide protection to
the life and liberty of the petitioners, if deemed fit and necessary.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the
documents appended by them with the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the dispute in present case would be covered by the judgment
of this Court decided on 28.03.2022 in CRWP No. 2139-2022 (O&M) titled as
P…..Minor through Vikram Versus State of Haryana and others” and that he
would be satisfied if the present petition is disposed of in terms of the said
judgment.
6. The said prayer is not objected by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of State of Punjab.
7. The present petition is thus disposed of in terms of the judgment
passed in CRWP No. 2139-2022 (O&M) titled as “P…..Minor through Vikram
Versus State of Haryana and others” with the consent of both the parties.
The petition is disposed of.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
JUDGE
JANUARY 01, 2025
VISHAL SHARMA
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 02-01-2025 23:01:57 :::