Reena And ANR. v. State Of Ut Chd. And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-2556-2023 (O&M) Decided on :17.03.2023 Reena and another . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of U. T. Chandigarh and others . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Mange Ram Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) Prayer in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of directions to respondents No. 2 and 3 to provide protection of lives and liberty of the petitioners, who have married against the wishes of private respondents. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 - Reena, aged about 18 years and petitioner No.2 - Rishu, aged about 21 years, have got married on 07.03.2023 against the wishes of their family members, arrayed as respondents No.4 to 8. It is first marriage of both the petitioners. It has been further submitted that private respondents are threatening to interfere in the matrimonial life of petitioners.

Hence, petitioners are seeking protection in that regard and have approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition. They have also submitted a representation dated nil (Annexure P-5), sent through e-mail dated 09.03.2023 to respondent No.2 - Senior Superintendent of Police, U. T. Chandigarh, wherein, they have expressed their apprehension. Notice of motion.

On advance notice, Ankur Bali, Addl. P.P., U.T. Chandigarh, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (State).

RIYA 2023.03.17 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRWP-2556-2023 - 2 - In view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 - Senior Superintendent of Police, U. T. Chandigarh, to look into the representation dated nil (Annexure P-5), sent through e-mail dated 09.03.2023, qua threat perception and if there is any substance in it, take necessary steps, in accordance with law, to ensure that lives and liberty of the petitioners, is not jeopardized at the hands of the private respondents.

However, this direction will not validate the marriage said to have taken place between the parties and will have no effect on any civil or criminal action, which could be initiated in the matter in accordance with law.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 17.03.2023 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No RIYA 2023.03.17 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document