Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Geeta Kaur And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 30 July, 2020

Author: Sudhir Mittal

Bench: Sudhir Mittal

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.105                   CRWP No.5229 of 2020
                             DATE OF DECISION: July 30, 2020


GEETA KAUR AND ANOTHER                                     ...PETITIONERS

                                     VERSUS



STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS                                 ...RESPONDENTS


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL


Present:     Mr. Madan Bhandari, Advocate,
             for the petitioners.

             *****

SUDHIR MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

The petitioners have filed this petition for protection of their lives and liberty. It is submitted on their behalf that they are in a live-in- relationship. Petitioner No.1 is aware that petitioner No.2 was married earlier but presently, the relations between petitioner No.2 and his wife i.e. Respondent No.9 are strained and they are contemplating annulling their marriage through a divorce. With full knowledge and responsibility, petitioner No.1 has decided to continue her live-in-relationship with petitioner No.2 but they fear for their lives and liberty at the hands of the private respondents. A representation dated 16.07.2020 (Annexure P-3) has been submitted but no action has been taken thereupon till date.

2. Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 3 only.

3. Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State of Punjab.


                                                                            15

                                1 of 2
             ::: Downloaded on - 06-09-2020 18:39:30 :::
 CRWP No.5229 of 2020                                             --2--

4. Considering the nature of the order being passed there is no necessity to serve the private respondents or to seek a reply from any one of the respondents.

5. The petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to take into consideration the request of the petitioners made vide representation dated 16.07.2020 (Annexure P-3) and to provide necessary protection in case the facts of the case so dictate.

6. It is made clear that this order is not a bar on initiation of any proceedings in accordance with law.

July 30, 2020                                             (SUDHIR MITTAL)
Ankur                                                         JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned                Yes/No

Whether Reportable                       Yes/No




                                                                             16

                                2 of 2
            ::: Downloaded on - 06-09-2020 18:39:30 :::