Kajal And ANR v. State Of Haryana And Others

THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH.

CRWP-6055-2021 (O&M).

Decided on: July 2, 2021.

Kajal and another .. Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Haryana and others .. Respondents * * *

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI * * * PRESENT Mr.Lalit Kumar Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioners.

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J. (ORAL ) The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners.

The learned counsel has submitted that petitioner No.1 (girl) aged 20 years is of marriageable age whereas petitioner No.2 (boy) is aged 20 years and 9 months and therefore, is 3 months short of the marriageable age permissible under the law.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that both the petitioners are in live-in-relationship and they intend to marry with each other once petitioner No.2 (boy) who is only 3 months short of the marriageable age, attains the age of majority under the law. He has submitted that both the petitioners are under threat from the respondents and therefore, they have sought protection of their life and liberty. Petitioners claim to have submitted a representation (Annexure P-3) dated 1.6.2021, in this regard to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra.

Heard. Record perused.

Notice of motion to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 only, at this stage.

Mr.Deepak Manchanda, Addl. A.G. Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the aforesaid respondents. Copy stands supplied. The petitioners have placed on record the copies of their Aadhar Cards (Annexures P-1 and P-2) as proof of their age. Without commenting upon the inter se relationship between the petitioners, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 - Senior Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra, to look into representation dated 1.6.2021 (Annexure P-3) filed by the petitioners and to assess the threat perception to the petitioners and if so required take appropriate action in accordance with law for ensuring the safety of the petitioners. At the cost of repetition, it is further clarified that present directions are issued only for the purpose of grant of protection of lives of

the petitioners and does not reflect anything on the relationship inter se between the petitioners.

July 2, 2021.

(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI) raj arora JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No Whether reportable Yes / No