Monika Singh And Another v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRWP No.12577 of 2024 Date of Decision: 26.12.2024 Monika Singh and another .....Petitioners.

Versus

State of Haryana and others .....Respondents.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA ***** Present:- Mr. Tanveer Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J. (Oral) Both the petitioners have joined hands to prefer the instant petition for seeking the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.2 to 4 to protect their lives and liberty as they apprehend threat to the same at the hands of respondents No.5 to 12 because they (petitioners) have solemnized their marriage against the wishes of these respondents. It has also been mentioned in this petition that a representation (Annexure P-5) has already been moved to respondent No.2 in this regard. 2.

Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 4 only. 3.

Ms. Ankita Ahuja, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, has appeared on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 in this case in pursuance of the copies of the present petition having been sent to the respondent-State in advance and she accepts the notice on their behalf. YAG DUTT 2024.12.26 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CRWP No.12577 of 2024 -24.

Heard.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioners restricts his prayer to the issuance of direction to respondent No.2 to look into and take appropriate action on the said representation of the petitioners, i.e Annexure P-5. 6.

Learned State counsel has no objection for the same. 7.

Keeping in view the intent of the fundamental right as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India which ensures the protection of life and liberty to the citizens as well as the afore-discussed limited prayer as made by learned counsel for the petitioners and without commenting or expressing any opinion on the legality and validity of the marriage as stated to have been solemnized between the petitioners, respondent No.2-Superintendent of Police, District Kurukshetra, is, hereby, directed to look into the above-referred representation (Annexure P-5) of the petitioners and if it is found that the petitioners genuinely deserve any protection, then to take appropriate action in accordance with law. 8.

However, it is clarified that this order shall not be construed to be a shield to the petitioners against any civil or criminal action/ proceedings already initiated or intended/contemplated to be initiated against them by any competent authority/person on account of their aforesaid marriage and permissible under the relevant provisions of law. 9.

The petition in hand stands disposed of accordingly. (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) December 26, 2024 JUDGE Yag Dutt Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether Reportable:

No YAG DUTT 2024.12.26 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment