Punjab-Haryana High Court
Asha And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 25 July, 2012
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Rakesh Kumar Jain
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Civil Writ Petition No. 6717 of 2009
Date of Decision: 25.7.2012
Asha and Another
... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and Others
... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain.
Present: Ms. Tanu Bedi, Amicus Curiae for the petitioners.
Mr. Alok Jain, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the State of Punjab.
Mr. Randhir Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the State of Haryana.
Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Standing Counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh.
Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice (Oral) Asha and Sanjay Kumar had filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking directions to respondents No.1 to 3 to protect their life and liberty and to provide them adequate security. It was their case that they have performed marriage against the wishes of their parents who are after their life.
Learned Single Judge of this Court took note of the above petition on 17.2.2009. It was brought to the notice of Court that before hearing of the petition, petitioner No.2 namely Sanjay Kumar had gone Civil Writ Petition No. 6717 of 2009 2 missing so the petition was pressed only on behalf of petitioner No.1 namely Asha. The directions were issued to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, to ensure safety of the above petitioner during pendency of that petition. Liberty was granted to the Senior Superintendent of Police to send petitioner No.1 to Nari Niketan if need be.
On 18.3.2009, petitioner No.1 stated before the Court that she wanted to go with petitioner No.2 and did not wish to be detained in Nari Niketan. Prayer was opposed on account of security reasons. Petitioner No.1 was sent to Nari Niketan.
Taking note of the gravity of the situation and many other such like cases which are coming up before the High Court everyday, learned Single Judge referred the matter to the Division Bench by passing the following order on 21.3.2009:-
"The petitioners, who have married against the wishes of their parents have preferred this petition for protection of their life and liberty as they apprehend danger to their lives at the hands of respondent No.4 and 5.
At the time of issuance of notice of motion, petitioner No.1 had appeared before this Court and stated that before this petition could be listed for hearing, petitioner No.2 had gone missing. Under the circumstances, a direction was issued to Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh to ensure safety of petitioner No.1 and liberty was also granted to make necessary arrangements to send her to the Nari Civil Writ Petition No. 6717 of 2009 3 Niketan. On the next date i.e. 26.02.2009 counsel for respondent Nos. 4 & 5 put in appearance and requested that petitioner No.1 be sent to the Nari Niketan for some more days, as some settlement was likely to be arrived at.
When the case again came up for hearing on 18.03.2009, a statement was made by learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 & 5 that efforts were afoot for amicable settlement of the issue and respondents No.4 and 5 were likely to reconcile to marriage of the petitioners. On the said date, Mr. Anupam Gupta, Senior Standing Counsel for U.,T. Chandigarh had assured that all necessary steps would be taken to ensure safety of petitioner No.2. Today when the case has come up for hearing it has been pointed out that the entire Panchayat of Village Dhani Mohu, Tehsil, Tosham District Bhiwani is against the marriage of the petitioners, for the reason that both the petitioners belong to same village. Mr.Anupam Gupta, has confirmed this fact and stated that threats are being issued to both the petitioners. According to the counsel, he has talked to petitioners No. 1 & 2 as well as father of petitioner No.2. Learned counsel submits that due to threats being issued to petitioner No.2 on his mobile phone, there is apprehension of danger to the life of the petitioners. According to the counsel, there is a larger issue involved in this case as those who get married within the same religion or caste or even sub-caste cannot be left to fend for themselves Civil Writ Petition No. 6717 of 2009 4 in a hostile social and cultural environment. According to the counsel the entire village cannot be described as prohibited zone for marriage and according to him it would impinge on the constitutional rights of individuals. Learned counsel had, therefore, emphasized that this Court would exercise its jurisdiction to enforce the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Learned counsel has also referred to the proceedings of the Advocate Generals Committee constituted pursuant to directions issued in Crl. Writ Petition No. 555 of 2008 regarding grant of protection to runaway couples. He has emphasized that if alternate mechanism for redressal of such problems is evolved, even then there can be no restriction or embargo on any person approaching this Court for enforcement of his right for protection of his life and liberty, the same being a fundamental right. According to the counsel every married couple will be entitled to enforce that right by way of invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, either by way of a writ or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Mr. Anupam Gupta has, particularly, emphasized that facts of this case urgently require the intervention of this Court, as danger to the life of the petitioners is quite apparent. Mr. Bishnoi, learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 and Mr. K.C. Gupta, AAG Haryana have also expressed the same apprehension.
In view of the fact that issue of larger public interest Civil Writ Petition No. 6717 of 2009 5 has arisen for consideration of this Court and many cases of this nature are likely to arise it would be appropriate if this matter is put up before Hon'ble the Chief Justice to be listed as per roster.
Accordingly, the matter be put up before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
In the meanwhile, since petitioner No.1, who is present in Court has clearly stated that she would like to accompany petitioner No.2 and no restraint be put on her regarding this, it is directed that petitioner No.1 is at liberty to accompany petitioner No.2.
Learned counsel for U.T. Chandigarh has assured that protection shall be granted to the petitioners so long as they are in Chandigarh.
Counsel for U.T. Chandigarh has pointed out that it would be necessary to provide adequate security to respondents No.4 and 5 as well as to the family members of the petitioner No.2, as the entire village is up in arms against this marriage.
Learned counsel for the State of Haryana submits that the State Government is already seized of the matter and an order has since been issued to provide security to the petitioners. Counsel has assured that adequate security shall also be provided to families of both the petitioners. Civil Writ Petition No. 6717 of 2009 6
A copy of the order be given to the counsel for the parties under the signatures of Bench Secretary."
Thereafter, many directions were issued. Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate, was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court. Various suggestions were put before the Bench including the one that the powers be vested with the District & Sessions Judges of both the States of Punjab & Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh, to entertain applications of the couples performing marriage against the wishes of their parents for providing security. On 31.3.2010, the following directions were given by the Division Bench of this Court:-
"Therefore, all the District and Sessions Judges in Punjab, Haryana and also U.T. Chandigarh are directed to ensure that if such run away couples approach them for help and assistance, interim protection shall be provided by the learned District and Sessions Judge, pending further orders of this Court. In case the District and Sessions Judge is not available, the senior-most Additional District and Sessions Judge will provide such protection."
On 28.7.2010, when this matter came up before the Court for hearing, Amicus Curiae and counsel for the Union Territory, Chandigarh were directed to intimate the place(s) in Chandigarh where temporary shelters could be provided to the newly married/runway couples. Both the States of Punjab and Haryana were also directed to earmark the place(s) as Shelter Homes for such couples. Thereafter, on 15.10.2010, Civil Writ Petition No. 6717 of 2009 7 a detailed order was passed and the following directions were given to both the States of Punjab and Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh:-
"i) The direction of this Court dated 31.3.2010 granting liberty to couples who have married against the wishes of their parents to approach the District and Sessions Judges in Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh for grant of protection is made absolute.
ii) The Police Officers are directed to deal sternly with parents/relatives/other members of the society who threaten such couples and create law and order situation. The States of Punjab and Haryana, as also the Union Territory of Chandigarh are directed to ensure that the protection centres indicated by them in various affidavits are properly run so that protection can be given to run away couples. Iii) The States of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh are further directed to form mediation/counselling cells in the offices of Commissioners/Sr. Superintendents of police to guide parents, relatives and such couples to live in peace.
iv) The States of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh are also directed to counsel Gram Panchayats in villages and create Special Civil Writ Petition No. 6717 of 2009 8 Cells in cities so as to prevail upon resisting parents/relatives to reconcile with such couples and they be prevailed upon not to take as threat to their honour or family honour at all.
v) False cases be not registered at the behest of parents/relatives under Sections 363/366/376 IPC against such couples who are majors.
vi) Arrest be normally deferred till absolutely necessary in such cases and criminal force against the boy/groom be avoided.
Vii) The States of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh are directed to advertise the existence of such protection centres all over the respective states prominently at all police stations and also by issuing periodically advertisements in various Media. The States of Punjab and Haryana are further directed to ensure that a Registrar of Marriages should visit each protection centre at-
least once a week at a fixed time and date.
However, the visit by the Registrar of Marriages in U.T. Chandigarh shall be at least thrice a week unless there is no occupant of such centres or there is no requirement by a couple for Registration.
viii) The State Legal Services Authorities/the District Legal Services Authorities in the States of Punjab, Civil Writ Petition No. 6717 of 2009 9 Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh are directed to depute some legal service counsel at the said centres at-least three times a week to provide legal assistance/counseling to such couples who desire that.
ix) There shall be a Committee at every District Headquarters comprising of Deputy Commissioner, Superintendent of Police and District Social Welfare Officer of the district concerned. In districts having Police Commissioner system, the Committee would comprise of Divisional Commissioner,Police Commissioner and District Social Welfare Officer of the district concerned. It would be the duty of this Committee to ensure that directions issued by the respective States, as well as by this Court are implemented in letter and spirit.
x) Initially the run away couples will be provided shelter at the Protection centres/shelter homes for a period of ten days. During the said period the threat perception shall be reviewed by the above Committee. The period of shelter may be further extended by the Committee from time to time, keeping in view the threat perception depending on the circumstances in each case.
xi) It is further directed that for the first ten days, no Civil Writ Petition No. 6717 of 2009 10 boarding and lodging charges would be payable by such couples. In case any such couple is constrained to take shelter at the protection centre for a longer period, each committee would determine reasonable charges therefor or given the social circumstances of the couple extend the free stay of the couple for such period as deemed necessary in the facts of the case."
This Court while monitoring the steps being taken by both the States and Union Territory, Chandigarh to provide security and shelter to such couples issued necessary directions from time to time. On the last date of hearing, while taking note of the contents of the affidavits filed by both the States of Punjab and Haryana indicating that a large number of rooms kept reserved for the newly married couples at various places are lying vacant, this Court passed the following order on 9.7.2012:-
"Affidavit on behalf of Under Secretary, Department of Home Affairs and Justice Government, State of Punjab has been put on record. Perusal thereof indicates that a large number of Protection Homes have been earmarked in the State of Punjab under the orders passed by this Court, whereas to the contrary number of couples seeking protection is less.
Lest there may not be any wastage of public money, Mr.Alok Jain, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, Mr.Randhir Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, Civil Writ Petition No. 6717 of 2009 11 Mr.Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Standing Counsel for UT Chandigarh and amicus curiae appointed in this case are directed to sit together and put on record a workable Scheme so that interest of the couples, in need of shelter, be protected and at the same time public money is not wasted."
It appears that the Committee consisting of counsel for the parties and Amicus Curiae has failed to arrive at some consensus as no workable scheme has been framed and placed before this Court.
The matter is pending before the Court since long for monitoring only. All the runway couples are being provided security as and when they approach the Court. The Shelter Homes in both the States and Union Territory, Chandigarh are also available for them. We feel that this petition does not require further monitoring. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition by issuing directions to both the States of Punjab & Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh to comply with the directions issued by this Court on 15.10.2010. In addition to above, further direction is issued that at every District Headquarters instead of earmarking any particular place(s), the authorities shall keep available minimum two rooms in the Circuit Houses/PWD Rest Houses and shelter be provided to the newly wedded couples as and when orders are issued by the District Judge, Deputy Commissioner and Senior Superintendent of Police of the concerned district. It is made clear that to get protection, the runway couples can approach any of the District Judge in the States of Punjab & Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh and also Deputy Commissioner and Senior Civil Writ Petition No. 6717 of 2009 12 Superintendent of Police in all the districts of the above States and Union Territory, Chandigarh, irrespective of the place of their residence.
In view of above, direction No. (x) issued earlier vide order dated 15.10.2010 deemed to have been deleted from the order. The facilities to be provided to runway couples will be reviewed by the officer who initially will pass an order granting shelter to the runway couples and/or by the Committee as mentioned in Clause No. (ix) in the above order. If necessary, legal aid services shall be provided to the couples in need of shelter.
We appreciate the work done by Ms. Tanu Bedi, Amicus Curiae. In pursuance of our order, she visited a number of shelter homes and made valuable suggestions. We direct the State Legal Services Authority, Punjab, to clear the bills submitted by Ms. Tanu Bedi, Amicus Curiae and Mr. Alok Jain, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, shall ensure that the needful is done within ten days from today.
(Jasbir Singh) Acting Chief Justice (Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge July 25, 2012 "DK"