Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sundri Yadav And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 13 February, 2020
Author: Arvind Singh Sangwan
Bench: Arvind Singh Sangwan
CRWP No. 1621 of 2020 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP No. 1621 of 2020
Date of decision: 13.02.2020
Sundri Yadav and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present:- Mr. Khalid, Advocate
for the petitioners.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)
Prayer in this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of directions to officials respondents to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners and to restrain respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who are parents of petitioner No. 1, from harassing or interfering in the peaceful life of the petitioners.
As per paragraph 8 of the petition, petitioner No. 2 Anil Kumar is already married and is having a minor son from his first wife and it is stated that she has no objection to live-in-relationship of petitioner No. 2 with petitioner No. 1 Sundri Yadav.
Admittedly, it is a case of adultery between the petitioners as petitioner No. 2 is a married persons and having a minor son.
On a Court query, whether petitioner No. 2 has deposited any amount in the form of FDR in favour of his legally wedded wife as well as minor son, learned counsel for the petitioners could not give any satisfactory reply.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon order dated 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 15-02-2020 01:38:51 ::: CRWP No. 1621 of 2020 -2- 27.01.2020 passed in CRWP No. 866 of 2020 titled as Aasuda and another vs. State of Haryana and others, wherein the petitioners, who were belonging to Islam religion, were granted protection as they were in live-in- relationship. Learned counsel has also relied upon order dated 04.11.2019 passed in CWP No. 31834 of 2019 titled as Megha and another vs. State of Haryana and others, wherein protection was granted to the petitioners therein, who were in a live-in-relationship but they were not already married.
Both the aforesaid orders, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, are not applicable to the present case as admittedly, petitioner No. 2 is a married person having living wife and a minor son and by way of filing the present petition, an overt act is made by the petitioners to get the seal of Court over their adulterous relation, which the Court does not want to be part of.
Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed.
13.02.2020 (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 15-02-2020 01:38:52 :::