Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRWP/8891/2026 of TNISHKA AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS on 27 July 2026
COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-8891-2026 Date of decision :27.07.2026 TNISHKA AND ANOTHER ... Petitioners Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Charitr Kadyan, Advoate for the petitioners (through V.C.). Mr.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP-8891-2026
Date of decision :27.07.2026 TNISHKA AND ANOTHER ... Petitioners Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Charitr Kadyan, Advoate for the petitioners (through V.C.). Mr. T.P. Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioners have approached this Court for issuance of necessary directions to respondents No.2 & 3 for protecting their lives and liberties which according to them are at stake because they are in a live-in-relationship. The petitioners claim themselves to be majors. According to the copies of the Aadhar Cards (Annexure P-1 and P-2), the exact date of birth of the petitioner No.1 is 20.11.2006 and the date of birth of the petitioner No.2 is 29.07.2006. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a marriage is not a must for providing security to a couple in a ‘live-in- relationship’ because protection qua life and liberty is sacrosanct and stands at the highest pedestal. He has also placed reliance upon orders passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in ‘Sarabjeet Kaur and another versus State of Punjab and others’ in CRWP-102-2022 decided JITESH LAL 2026.07.27 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRWP-8891-2026
on 07.01.2022, ‘Goutam Kumar and another versus State of Punjab and others’ in CRWP-8088-2021 decided on 26.08.2021 and Bharti and Another Versus State of U.T., Chandigarh & others in CRWP-9470- 2020. Notice of motion to respondents No. 1 to 3. On the asking of the Court, Mr. T.P. Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents. Since no order prejudicial to the interest of the parties is being passed, therefore, there is no necessity of inviting any response. At this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, as well as on the age and nature of the relationship between the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to direct respondent No. 2- Superintendent of Police, District Karnal to look into the matter and pass an appropriate order on the representation allegedly filed by the petitioners before him on 22.07.2026 (Annexure P-3). It would be appreciated if necessary orders are passed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, if the petitioners are found to have been involved in any other case then this order shall not preclude the competent authority from taking lawful action against the petitioners. Disposed of.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 27.07.2026 JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No JITESH LAL 2026.07.27 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document