Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRWP/8612/2026 of SHWETA MISHRA AND ANR Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS on 20 July 2026
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-8612-2026 Date of decision: 20.07.2026 Date of uploading: 20.07.2026 Shweta Mishra and another ....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Ms. Shivani, Advocate for
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRWP-8612-2026
Date of decision: 20.07.2026
Date of uploading: 20.07.2026
Shweta Mishra and another
....Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:
Ms. Shivani, Advocate for
Mr. Rhythem Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioners.
*****
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
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.
1. The petitioners have approached this Court for issuance of necessary directions for protecting their life and liberties which according to them are at stake because they are in a live-in-relationship. The petitioners claim themselves to be major in terms of age. According to the copies of the Aadhar Cards (appended alongwith the petition in hand as Annexures P-1 and P-2), the date of birth of the petitioner No.1-Shweta Mishra is 21.08.2001 and the date of birth of the petitioner No.2- Abhishek Panday is 07.02.1994.
2. 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 on 07.01.2022; ‘Goutam Kumar and another versus NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.07.20 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh
CRWP-8612-2026
State of Punjab and others’ in CRWP-8088-2021 decided on 26.08.2021; Bharti and Another Versus State of U.T., Chandigarh & others and ‘Annu Rani & Anr. vs. State of Haryana’ in CRWP-11060-2023 decided on 15.11.2023.
3. Notice of motion to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (i.e. official respondents).
4. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents.
5. 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 (Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana) to look into the matter and pass an appropriate order on the representation stated to have been filed by the petitioners before him/her on 30.06.2026 (Annexure P-3) & pass appropriate orders thereupon within two weeks from today.
6. 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.
7. The petition stands disposed off. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE 20.07.2026 Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.07.20 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh