Punjab-Haryana High Court
Priyapreet Kaur And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 23 December, 2020
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP-10828-2020 (O&M)
Date of decision : 23.12.2020
PRIYAPREET KAUR AND ANOTHER ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present: Mr. Yashpal Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
Heard through video conferencing.
The present criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of fundamental rights of the petitioners seeking protection of their life and liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India at the hands of respondent Nos.4 to 6.
In brief, the relevant facts as stated in the petition are that both the petitioners are major, the date of birth of petitioner No.1 being 29.06.2001 and that of petitioner No.2 being 08.10.2000 as per their age- proofs (Annexures P-1 and P-2). It is further stated petitioners have known each other from the last one year and wanted to marry each other. However, when the parents of petitioner No.1 became aware of their relationship, fights took place between the families. The parents of petitioner No.1 gave her severe beatings and decided to marry her against her wishes, confined her into a room, snatched her mobile phone and threatened to kill her if she kept any kind of relationship with petitioner No.2. Petitioner No.1 left her home on 20.12.2020 to reside with petitioner No.2. It is further stated that since petitioner No. 2 has not attained marriageable age, the petitioners are living in a live- inrelationship. However, their relationship is not acceptable to respondent Nos.4 to 6 and they are threatening the petitioners with dire consequences.
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2020 23:09:55 :::
CRWP-10828-2020 (O&M) -2-
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the life and liberty of the petitioners is in grave danger at the hands of respondent Nos.4 to 6. It is further contended that the petitioners have also moved a representation dated 20.12.2020 (Annexure P-3) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab (respondent No.2). However, no action has been taken thereon.
Notice of motion.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. V.G. Jauhar, Senior DAG, Punjab has joined the session through video conferencing and accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. Since the matter is not being decided on merits, service of notice on other respondents is dispensed with.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In the present case, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the validity of the relationship of the petitioners, is required to consider whether the apprehension of the petitioners needs to be addressed. Petitioner No.1 in the present case is more than 18 years of age and is a major. She is well within her right to decide for herself what is good for her and what is not. She has decided to take a step to be in a live-in-relationship with petitioner No.2 who is also major, though may not be of a marriageable age. Be that as it may, the fact remains that both the petitioners in the present case are major and have a right to live their life on their own terms. The private respondent Nos.4 to 6 being familymembers of petitioner No.1, who is a major, cannot dictate to petitioner No.1 how and with whom she chooses to spend her life. Parents cannot compel a child to live a life on their terms. Every adult individual has a right to live his or her life as he or she deems fit.
The petitioners are both major and have every right to live their lives as they desire within the four corners of the law. The society cannot determine how an individual should live her or his life. The Constitution of India guarantees every individual the right to life and the choice of a partner is an important facet of the right to life. In the matter of Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC 368, the Supreme Court reiterated the right of choice of an adult. It was inter alia held:-
"86. The right to marry a person of one's choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution. The Constitution
2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2020 23:09:56 ::: CRWP-10828-2020 (O&M) -3- guarantees the right to life. This right cannot be taken away except through a law which is substantively and procedurally fair, just and reasonable. Intrinsic to the liberty which the Constitution guarantees as a fundamental right is the ability of each individual to take decisions on matters central to the pursuit of happiness. Matters of belief and faith, including whether to believe are at the core of constitutional liberty. The Constitution exists for believers as well as for agnostics. The Constitution protects the ability of each individual to pursue a way of life or faith to which she or he seeks to adhere. Matters of dress and of food, of ideas and ideologies, of love and partnership are within the central aspects of identity. The law may regulate (subject to constitutional compliance) the conditions of a valid marriage, as it may regulate the situations in which a marital tie can be ended or annulled. These remedies are available to parties to a marriage for it is they who decide best on whether they should accept each other into a marital tie or continue in that relationship. Society has no role to play in determining our choice of partners."
The petitioners are seeking protection of their life and liberty as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides for protection of life and personal liberty and further lays down that no person shall be deprived of his or her personal liberty except as per the procedure established by law. No doubt petitioner No.2 is not of marriageable age, however, admittedly, he is a major. Merely because of the fact that petitioner No.2 is not of a marriageable age the petitioners cannot possibly be denied enforcement of their fundamental rights as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, both being major, have decided to live together in a live-in relationship and there possibly may not be any legally justifiable reason for the respondents to object to the same.
In view of the above and without expressing any opinion with regard to the veracity of the contents of the petition and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab (respondent 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2020 23:09:56 ::: CRWP-10828-2020 (O&M) -4- No.2) is directed to decide the representation dated 20.12.2020 (Annexure P-3) and take necessary action as per law.
It is, however, made clear that this order shall neither be construed as an expression of opinion on the veracity of the contents of the present petition nor as a stamp of this Court on the validity of the alleged live-inrelationship of the petitioners and shall have no effect on any other civil or criminal proceedings, if any, instituted/pending against them.
Disposed off accordingly.
( ALKA SARIN )
December 23, 2020 JUDGE
kv
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2020 23:09:56 :::