Paramjit Kaur v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 115) CRWP no.4338 of 2021 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.05.2021 Paramjit Kaur and another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH Present:- Mr. Vikramjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Mehta, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

*** Amol Rattan Singh, J. (Oral) Case heard by way of video conferencing.

By this petition, the petitioners seek protection of life and liberty at the hands of respondents no.4 and 5, upon the petitioners having married each other (as contended) against the wishes of the said respondents, on 03.05.2021.

On a specific query put to learned counsel for the petitioners, it has been stated that neither are the petitioners in any prohibited relationship to each other, nor has any of them been married earlier. He states that he has obtained specific instructions from the petitioners in that regard. As regards age of petitioner no.1, a copy of a matriculation certificate shown to be issued by the Punjab School Education Board has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2, giving her date of birth to be 21.05.2000, thereby making her 21 years of age; however, there is no firm proof of age of petitioner no.2, other than his Aadhar Card, which is actually not firm proof of age.

VIKAS CHANDER 2021.05.14 22:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

115) CRWP no.4338 of 2021 (O&M) -2Be that as it may, since protection of life and liberty is a fundamental right of every citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, without making any comment whatsoever on the validity of the marriage, or otherwise, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents no.2 and 3, to ensure that the lives and liberty of the petitioners are not put to any harm or threat at the hands of the aforesaid respondents, or at their behest.

However, if upon verification of the matriculation certificate annexed as Annexure P-2 with the petition, it is found that petitioner no.1 is below the marriageable age in terms of the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, this order shall not be construed to be a bar on any proceedings initiated under that Act, the offences committed under that Act being cognizable in terms of the provisions of Section 15 thereof. Further, it is made clear that if any of the averments made in the petition is found to be incorrect, specifically with regard to either the petitioners being in any prohibited relationship to each other, or as regards their previous marital status, this order shall not be construed to be a bar on proceedings initiated as per law.

Naturally, the life of the petitioners would still continue to be protected in any case.

13.05.2021 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) vcgarg JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes Whether Reportable :No VIKAS CHANDER 2021.05.14 22:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document