Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1930 (PNJ)

Sapna v. State of Punjab

2021-12-14

HARNARESH SINGH GILL

body2021
Judgment Mr. Harnaresh Singh Gill, J. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of the private respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is major, but petitioner No. 2 (boy), though major, has not attained the marriageable age. They are living together in a live-in relationship. He further submits that parents of petitioners were informed, but they are issuing threats to the petitioners regarding their live-in relationship. The petitioners have already submitted a representation dated 07.12.2021 (Annexure P-3) to respondent No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur, for redressal of their grievance, but no action has been taken thereupon. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are living in a constant danger as they have every apprehension that the private respondents would catch them and carry out their threats and might go to the extent of even committing their murder. The petitioners are, therefore, running from pillar to posts for protection of their life and liberty. 4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble SupremeCourt of Indiain ‘Nandakumar and Anr. Vs. The State of Kerala andothers’, 2018(2) RCR (Civil) 899.wherein it was held that even if the boywas not competent to enter into wedlock, they have right to live togethereven outside wedlock. It would not be out of place to mention that ‘live-inrelationship’ is now recognized by the Legislature itself. 5. Notice of motion to the respondents No.1 to 3-State only at this stage. 6. On the asking of this Court, Mr. Harpreet Singh Multani, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Article 21 of the Constitution stipulates protection of life and liberty to every citizen and that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 9. It is the bounden duty of the State as per the Constitutional obligations cast upon it to protect the life and liberty of every citizen. Article 21 of the Constitution stipulates protection of life and liberty to every citizen and that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 9. It is the bounden duty of the State as per the Constitutional obligations cast upon it to protect the life and liberty of every citizen. Mere fact that petitioner No. 2 is not of marriageable age, would not deprive the petitioners of their fundamental right as envisaged in the Constitution, being citizens of India. 10. In view of the above discussion, I dispose of the present petition with a direction to respondent No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur, to decide the representation dated dated 07.12.2021 (Annexure P-3) moved by the petitioners, in accordance with law, and grant protection to them, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived. 11. It is made clear that this order shall not be taken to protect the petitioners from legal action for violation of law if any committed by them.