Aman @ Amandeep & ANR v. State Of Punjab & ORS

CRM-M No. 38458 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No. 38458 of 2017 DATE OF DECISION :- October 11, 2017 Aman @ Amandeep and another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN Present:- Mr. Manoj Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. *** Notice of motion.

At the asking of the Court Ms. Samina Dhir, DAG, Punjab took notice for the State.

It is contended that petitioner no. 1 Aman @ Amandeep aged about 19 years has married petitioner no. 2 Rohit aged about 23 years (both of them belong to Christian community) against the wishes of family members arrayed as respondents no. 4 to 6 in the petition, who have been interfering in their marital life. Petitioners apprehend danger to their lives and liberty at the hands of private respondents, therefore, they have approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition. At this stage, Mr. David Masih has appeared in the Court along with Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate, who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 5. Mr. David Masih states that petitioner Rohit is a drug addict and as such they are against marriage of Aman @ Amandeep with Parvinder Singh 2017.10.11 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M No. 38458 of 2017 Rohit.

Learned counsel for the respondent prays that the matter be referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. However, petitioner Aman @ Amandeep, who is a major states that she is not ready to talk with Mr. David Masih, who happens to her paternal uncle. I do not find any justification for referring the matter to Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

Since the petitioners have expressed apprehension of interference in their married life by respondents no. 4 to 6, the petition is disposed of by directing respondent no. 2 Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur to take necessary steps to ensure that lives and liberty of the petitioners are not jeopardised at the hands of respondents no. 4 to 6. However, this direction will not validate the marriage said to have taken place between the petitioners and will have no effect on any civil or criminal action which could be initiated in the matter in accordance with law.

(H.S. MADAAN) JUDGE October 11, 2017 p.singh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Parvinder Singh 2017.10.11 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh