Ajay Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Others



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 01.04.2021 Ajay Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others .....Respondents



   

 

 


 


  



 



!

"


#

 

 %


   

      







 



& 

  

  

'

()* $ +,
 
+- .

/+/+

 
-

0 

 
 
/++.
1  
  

 
%.%

%..
) 2
   
 
 
3
# 
 
14
%2


 0'
 



Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.2 got the above-noted FIR registered on 09.06.2020. In fact, the petitioner and respondent No.3 developed liking for each other and underwent marriage with each other on 07.06.2020 against the wishes of the parents of the latter regarding which they had sought protection of life

/ and liberty from this Court by way of filing CRWP-3593-2020, which stood disposed of vide order dated 10.06.2020, with a direction to the

  

 
  


 


 

 



  



'
& 

  
  %

 
 
*56-%+/+/+
   
 


0

)

  
  
 
4

  



0
 /

0
 

)


     
$ /
  




07 





0

  
3 
7





3 
 



  
 




3
3

Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner and respondent No.3 have been living together happily as husband and wife since the date of solemnization of their marriage, and considering the said fact, this Court, vide order dated 15.10.2020, had ordered that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made in the present petition.

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 does not dispute the fact that the petitioner and respondent No.3 have been living together as husband and wife since the date of solemnization of their marriage. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The short reply dated 26.01.2021 filed by way of affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Guhla, is read to submit that the petitioner and respondent No.3 joined the investigation and her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. had been recorded. She was also

% produced before the Child Welfare Committee, for counselling and the Medical Officer, CHC Guhla, for medico-legal examination, but she had refused to get herself medico-legally examined. In her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., she has specifically stated that she performed the marriage with Ajay on 07.06.2020 and she wanted to live with him.

For the sake of arguments, if it is assumed that respondent No.3 is a minor, even then u

!

5
 
8-+


 


   

& 

 




 0 
 



 
6


"

 
-66 





 




 

)
    
 
/6


!

5
 
8-+
     

3 


3



  
3

0  
9




   

3

0



  


0 


  



 
 3
 
3 

 
 

3


 

&


0





 


3

 



)


 

:Jitender Kumar Sharma versus State and another, WP (CRL) 1003/2010


 /++
0

#
; 
# 
" 
 

 
3




  

3


 



3
3
 
.
 3
< 
3
8



)
3 
0
 

   




7  
3


  "22. A reading of the 1890 Act and the 1956 Act, together, reveals the guiding principles which ought to be kept in mind

= when considering the question of custody of a minor hindu. We have seen that the natural guardian of a minor hindu girl whose is married, is her husband. We have also seen that no minor can be the guardian of the person of another minor except his own wife or child. Furthermore, that no guardian of the person of a minor married female can be appointed where her husband is not, in the opinion of the court, unfit to be the guardian of her person. The preferences of a minor who is old enough to make an intelligent preference ought to be considered by the court. Most importantly, the welfare of the minor is to be the paramount consideration. In fact, insofar as the custody of a minor is concerned, the courts have consistently emphasized that the prime and often the sole consideration or guiding principle is the welfare of the minor.

23. In the present case, Poonam is a minor Hindu girl who is married. Her natural guardian is no longer her father but her husband. A husband who is a minor can be the guardian of his minor wife. No other person can be appointed as the guardian of Poonam, unless we find that Jitender is unfit to act as her guardian for reasons other than his minority. We also have to give due weight and consideration to the preference indicated by Poonam. She has refused to live with her parents and has categorically expressed her desire and wish to live with her husband, Jitender. Coming to Poonam's welfare which is of paramount importance, we are of the view that her welfare would be best served if she were to live with her husband. She would get the love and affection of her husband.

She would have the support of her in-laws who, as we have mentioned earlier, welcomed her. She cannot be forced or compelled to continue to reside at Nirmal Chhaya or some other such institution as that would amount to her detention against her will and would be violative of her rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Neetu Singh's case (supra) is a precedent for this. Sending her to live with her parents is not an option as she fears for her life and liberty."

 

Jitender Kumar Sharma:

1 2
3 ()*

()*

 
%.%>%,.
)

()*

 
%.%>6+.

) 
3
' 


  

3

3

State of Haryana and others versus Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 AIR 604
3 
 
=8/
 


0
4

4 
 

6 )

0 
()*

  


 
  /
 

 %

  

0

8

 

3



 
 ? 

 

   
 %


  

0

3

 



 
3 
0


 3



 

   


  

 3
()*
$ +,
  +- .

/+/+

 
-

0 

 

 
/++.

1  
  

 
%.%

%..
) 2
  

 

 
3
# 
 
14
%2



0'

 



'
'

        




     5 
>  @
A>$ 5 
  0 @
A>$