Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRWP/11009/2020 of KAJAL AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS on 31 December 2020
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRWP-11009-2020 Date of Decision: 31.12.2020 Kajal and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present : Mr. Lajpat Sharma, Advocate, for the
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-11009-2020Date of Decision: 31.12.2020
Kajal and another ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present : Mr. Lajpat Sharma, Advocate,for the petitioners.
Through Video Conferencing
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for grant of protection of life and liberty to the petitioners at the hands of the private respondent Nos.4 to 10.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that both the petitioners have married each other and petitioner No.1 is of 18 years of age and petitioner No.2 is of 25 years of age. He has further submitted that since the marriage was against the wishes of the parents of the girl, they have active threat from the parents of the petitioner that they will be killed by them.
Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 to 3 only.
On asking of the Court, Mr. Munish Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and at this stage, Ms. Gurmeet Kaur, Advocate has caused appearance on behalf of the private respondent Nos.4
to 10 and she has stated that she has instructions to say that there is no threat at the hands of respondent Nos.4 to 10.
However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since there has been repeated threats from the private respondents, necessary protection may be granted to the petitioners.
In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra, to look into the threat perception to the petitioners and in case, if so required, necessary steps may be taken in accordance with law.
However, it is made clear thatthese directions pertains only to the protection of life and liberty to the petitioners and does not, in any way, have any reflection on the validity of the marriage of the petitioners interse.
Consequently, the present petition is disposed of.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)31.12.2020JUDGEadhikari