High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRWP/6642/2021disposed of

Diksha Khatri And ANR v. State Of Haryana And Others

2021-09-06Mr. Justice Amol Rattan Singh3 pages

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:06.09.2021 Diksha Khatri and another ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others ......... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH

Present:

Mr. Deepak Kumar Bartia, Advocate, for the petitioners.

***** AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (ORAL) ase heard via On 04.08.2021 the following order had been passed by this court:-

!! " !! !

!!!

$ !

!! !!!

% !

& !

'! ()*+,*,( !

-!! !!

!& !

!! ( !'

!! &!! % !

/ !&!

0 ' '!!

!!'

! !

1- 21 !!

& !!

! !

!! ( - 34&! !!

2 -

-23'! 5 !

,*,* '!

*.*,,**6

! 4 !

1- !

- - 34&! !!

! !

1 '!-' !!

2 !!

! '! !

4!!

4 !

! !

& !

'! '!

((*.,*,(

'!& ! !7 Thereafter, on 18.08.2021 the following order had been passed by this court:- "In compliance of the order dated 04.08.2021, Mr. Rajneesh Kumar, DSP, Barara, District Ambala is present in the Court through video conferencing and has stated that he filed the affidavit dated 29.07.2021 on the basis of the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan.

Mr. Rajneesh Kumar, DSP, Barara is directed to state the reasons for filing the said incorrect affidavit by way of another affidavit on or before the next date of hearing. It has been submitted by the DSP Barara that protection sought by the petitioners has already been granted.

Let fresh affidavit be filed by DSP Barara on or before 06.09.2021."

Pursuant thereto, a status report dated 01.09.2021 has been filed by the DSP, this time annexing therewith a certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, in respect of the Secondary Examination

-3conducted in the year 2018, showing the date of birth of petitioner no.1 to be 08.02.2003.

That being so, she being above the age of 18 years as on the date that she is stated to have left her parental home on 10.07.2021, without making any comment on the contentions raised in the petition, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents no.1 to 3, to ensure that the life and liberty of the petitioners is duly protected, they both being of the age of majority (with petitioner no.2 also shown to be 19 years of age as per his Senior Secondary Examination certificate (copy Annexure P-3), showing that his date of birth is 28.04.2002). Hence therefore, being adults, obviously a live-in-relationship cannot be adversely commented upon in legal terms at least by this court. September 06, 2021 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) dinesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable Yes