Reena And Another v. Ut Of Chandigarh And Others

CRWP-7591-2024 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-7591-2024 Date of Decision: August 08, 2024 Reena and another ......Petitioners

Versus

State of (UT), Chandigarh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:

Mr.Nagesh Ahmed Khan, Advocate for Mr.Devinder K.Rajwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

........

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing respondents No.1 to 5 not to interfere in the personal lives and personal liberty of the petitioners and further directing respondents No.1 to 3 not allow/let respondents No.4 and 5 or anybody else to interfere with the lives and liberty of the petitioners in any manner. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that both the petitioners are major and have married against the wishes of respondents No.4 and 5 and have sought protection to their life and liberty. They apprehend danger from respondents No.4 and 5. Their marriage certificate evidencing their marriage is on record as Annexure P-3. The petitioners have submitted a representation, dated 30.07.2024 (Annexure P-4) to respondent No.2.

3.

Notice of motion to respondents no.1 to 3-State only. MEENU 2024.08.08 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRWP-7591-2024 -24.

On asking of the Court, Mr.Anupam Bansal, Addl.P.P., UT, Chandigarh, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/UT.

5.

Without entering upon an exercise to evaluate the evidentiary value of the documents placed on the file, I dispose of the petition with a direction to respondent No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, to decide the representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioners and grant them protection, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived. It is clarified that this order shall not be taken to grant immunity to the petitioners from legal action for violation of law, if any, committed by them. This order would not be understood having expressed any opinion whatsoever by this Court on the validity of the marriage of the petitioners. August 08, 2024 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No MEENU 2024.08.08 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document