Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 3119 (PNJ)

Reena Devi v. State of Punjab

2023-11-06

KULDEEP TIWARI

body2023
KULDEEP TIWARI, J. 1. The instant petition, as cast under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, proffers the hereinafter extracted relief(s), as craved by the petitioners, inasmuch as, (i) a mandamus being made upon the respondents No.1 to 3 to protect their lives and liberty at the hands of private respondents No.4 and 5, besides at the hands of their friends and relatives; and (ii) a direction being made upon the respondents No.1 to 3 not to falsely implicate them in any false criminal case at the behest of private respondents No.4 and 5, or, their friends and relatives. 2. The petitioners, in their asking for the relief(s) (supra), have made submissions that both of them have attained the age of majority, as the petitioner No.1 was born on 01.01.2002, while the petitioner No.2 was born on 26.04.1996. To substantiate their claim qua them attaining majority, the petitioners have appended their respective Aadhar Cards as Annexures P-1 and P-2 with the instant petition. The further submissions, as made in the instant petition, are that the petitioners have been living in ‘live-in relationship’ since September, 2023 and though their relationship has been accepted by the family members of petitioner No.2, however, it has caused grievance to the family members of petitioner No.1. As a result of such grievance, the family members of petitioner No.1 threatened to kill the petitioners, which has made them apprehensive of danger to their lives and liberty and resultantly, has constrained them to approach this Court, to seek protection of their lives and liberty. 3. It is further averred in the petition, that consequent upon threats being extended by the family members of petitioner No.1, though the petitioners made a representation dated 27.10.2023 (Annexure P-3) to the respondent no.2, however, it remained un-actioned. 4. Before evincing any opinion on the validity of the relief(s) asked for the instant petition, it is deemed imperative to extract from the petition, that though the petitioner No.1 is unmarried, however, the petitioner No.2 has been married to one Suman daughter of Makhan Singh. Out of their wedlock, a girl child, namely, Navjot Kaur, who is aged 2 years, was born, who is stated to be residing with the petitioner No.2. 5. Out of their wedlock, a girl child, namely, Navjot Kaur, who is aged 2 years, was born, who is stated to be residing with the petitioner No.2. 5. Moreover, though the factum qua institution of a divorce case inter se petitioner No.2 and his wife, before the learned Family Court, Patiala, has been recorded in the petition, however, the ultimate fate of that divorce case remains undisclosed in the petition, which impels this Court to draw an inference that the said divorce case is yet subjudice. Therefore, without obtaining any valid decree of divorce from his earlier spouse and during subsistence of his earlier marriage, the petitioner No.2 is living a lustful and adulterous life with the petitioner No.1, which may constitute an offence punishable under Sections 494/495 of the IPC, as such a relationship does not fall within the phrase of ‘live-in relationship’ or ‘relationship’ in the nature of marriage. 6. Apart from the above, what further erupts from a naked eye scrutiny of the instant petition, as also the representation (Annexure P-3), is that, only bald and vague allegations, qua threats being extended to the petitioners by the private respondents, are made therein. Neither any supportive material has been placed on record by the petitioners to corroborate their allegations, nor even any single instance pertaining to the manner and mode of alleged threats being extended to the petitioners has been anywhere disclosed. Therefore, such bald and vague allegations cannot be readily and naively accepted by this Court, in the absence of any valid and convincing material in support thereof. 7. On the face of the above, it appears that in order to avoid any criminal prosecution in case of adultery, the present petition has been instituted. To the judicial mind of this Court, under the guise of invocation of the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the hidden intent of the petitioners is just to obliquely obtain the seal of this Court on their conduct. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no concrete ground to grant the asked for relief(s), which are consequently negated. Therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.