Karishna Rani v. State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : November 14, 2023 KARISHNA RANI & ANR.

-Petitioners V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS -Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present:

Mr. Nitish, Advocate for the petitioners.

*** KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

1.

Through the instant petition, as cast under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners yearn for the issuance of directions upon the official respondents, to ensure protection of their lives and liberty at the hands of private respondents, and, also to restrain the private respondents from harassing the petitioners or interfering in their personal life. In addition, the petitioners have also sought issuance of direction upon the official respondents to decide their representation dated 06.11.2023 (Annexure P-2).

2.

The petitioners, in their asking for the relief(s) (supra), have made submissions that both of them have attained the age of majority, as the petitioner No.1 was born on 07.12.1999, while the petitioner No.2 was born on 03.07.2001. To substantiate their claim qua them attaining majority, the petitioners have appended their respective Aadhar Cards as Annexures P-1 and P-2 with the instant petition. The further submissions, as made in the instant petition, are that though the petitioner No.2 is

unmarried, however, the petitioner No.1 has been forcibly married to respondent No.4, who is allegedly an alcoholic person. Out of their wedlock, a son namely Harkirat Singh, who is arrayed as respondent No.5 herein, was born, who is stated to be residing with the respondent No.4. However, the petitioner No.1, after being fed up by the alleged atrocities committed by respondent No.4, left his company and started living with the petitioner No.2. The private respondents became aggrieved from the relationship of the petitioners and as a result of such grievance, the private respondents threatened to kill the petitioners, which has made them apprehensive of danger to their lives and liberty and resultantly, has constrained them to approach this Court, to seek protection of their lives and liberty.

3.

It is further averred in the petition, that consequent upon threats being extended by the private respondents, the petitioner No.1 approached the respondent No.2 through making a representation on 06.11.2023 (Annexure P-3), thereby seeking protection of their lives and liberty.

4.

Before evincing any opinion on the validity of the relief(s) asked for in the instant petition, it is deemed imperative to record here that though the factum qua marriage of petitioner No.1 has been cited in the instant petition, however, neither the petition nor the representation (Annexure P-3) make any disclosure as to whether the petitioner No.1 has obtained divorce from her spouse or not. In such circumstances, this Court is impelled to draw an inference that without obtaining any valid decree of divorce from her spouse and during subsistence of her marriage, the

petitioner No.1 is living with the petitioner No.2. 5.

Apart from the above, what further erupts from a naked eye scrutiny of the instant petition, as also the representation (Annexure P-3), is that, only bald and vague allegations, qua threats being extended to the petitioners by the private respondents, are made therein. No supportive material has been placed on record by the petitioners to corroborate their allegations. Therefore, such bald and vague allegations cannot be readily and naively accepted by this Court, in the absence of any valid and convincing material in support thereof.

6.

Moreover, the record makes it discernible that the representation (Annexure P-3) has been sent by the petitioner No.1, through courier on 08.11.2023, while the instant petition has also been filed hastily on the very same date, i.e. 08.11.2023, without awaiting any response or outcome of the representation (supra). To the judicial mind of this Court, under the guise of invocation of the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the hidden intent of the petitioners is just to obliquely obtain the seal of this Court on their relationship.

7.

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no concrete ground to grant the asked for relief(s), which are consequently negated, being founded upon baseless pleas and promoted rather by mere assumptions and presumptions. Therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed.

(KULDEEP TIWARI) November 14, 2023 JUDGE devinder Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No