Rubal Verma And Another v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-36822 of 2016 Date of decision: 14.10.2016 Rubal Verma and another ....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

Present:

Mr. Bhupender Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking direction to respondents No. 1 to 4 to provide protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondents no. 5 to 9, who are relatives of petitioner no. 1 and not to interfere in the peaceful matrimonial life of the petitioners.

The petitioner no. 1 is alleged to be major as her date of birth is 15.11.1990 as per the matriculation certificate (Annexure P-3). Date of birth of petitioner No. 2 is stated to be 24.03.1990 as per matriculation certificate (Annexure P-4).

The pleaded case of the petitioners is that the petitioners got married on 03.10.2016 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Harit Vihar, Delhi and the photographs are appended as Annexure P-1 and the marriage certificate as Annexure P-2. It is further submitted that both the petitioners are working in private firms at Gurgaon and are getting handsome salaries and, therefore, in a position to meet their family obligations. The apprehension is on account of the fact that they belong to different communities. Petitioner no. 1 belongs to Goldsmith community whereas, petitioner no. 2 Shivani Gupta 2016.10.14 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

-2belongs to Punjabi Baniya community. A representation dated 04.10.2016 has also been moved before respondent no. 3 (Annexure P-5). After hearing counsel for the petitioners; without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and without commenting upon the validity of the marriage or the age of the petitioners and keeping in view the binding precedent of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another 2006(2) SCC (Criminal) 478, the present petition is disposed of with direction to respondent nos. 3 and 4 to look into the above said representation filed by the petitioners and take necessary action in accordance with law and provide protection, if so required. 14.10.2016 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) shivani JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Shivani Gupta 2016.10.14 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh