Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramandeep Kaur And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 29 February, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:028909
2024:PHHC:028909
CRWP-1924-2024 -1-
114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRWP-1924-2024
Date of Decision:29.02.2024
RAMANDEEP KAUR AND ANOTHER
……Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
……Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. Gagan Preet Saini, Advocate
for the Petitioners.
Ms. Ramta K Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab.
***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)
The present Criminal Writ Petition has been filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of directions to respondent
Nos. 2 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners.
2. The petitioner no.1 is stated to have been born on 30.12.2003
and for this purpose, reference has been made to the Aadhaar card
(Annexure P-1). The petitioner no.2 is stated to have been born on
11.01.1992 and for the said purpose, reference has been made to the
Aadhaar card (Annexure P-2). It is stated that the petitioners are in a “Live
in Relationship”. The petitioner No.1 had earlier solemnized marriage with
respondent No.4-Harpreet Singh and no child has been born from the said
wedlock. The petitioner No.2 is unmarried. And as such, the petitioner
No.1 is in a ‘live-in-relationship’ with petitioner No.2.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in a judgment dated 18.05.2021 passed in
1 of 8
01-03-2024 05:36:14 :::
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:028909
2024:PHHC:028909
CRWP-1924-2024 -2-
CRWP-4521- 2021 titled as “Pardeep Singh and another vs. State of
Haryana and others” has granted protection in a case where the petitioners
were living in a “Live in Relationship”.
4. The learned counsel has further relied upon an order passed by
a coordinate Bench of this Court dated 03.09.2021, passed in CRWP-7874-
2021 titled as “Paramjit Kaur and another vs. State of Punjab and others”
as per which although the divorce petition filed by petitioner no.2 therein
was dismissed, yet this Court had granted protection to the petitioners.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon an
order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 02.11.2021 passed
in CRWP-10411-2021 Amandeep Kaur Anr. Vs. State of Punjab Ors.
as per which in a case where one of the parties was married and was living
in with another person other than her husband, this Court had granted
protection to the petitioners therein.
6. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioners
have sent a representation dated 21/26.02.2024 (Annexure P-3) to
respondent no.2 and they would be satisfied in case respondent no.2 is
directed to look into the said representation and after considering the threat
perception to the petitioners, take appropriate action in accordance with law.
7. Notice of motion to respondents Nos.1 to 3 only.
8. On advance notice, Ms. Ramta K Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab
appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondents Nos.1 to 3 and has
stated that she has no objection in case respondent no.2 is directed to look
into the representation of the petitioners on the aspect of threat perception
and to take appropriate action, in accordance with law.
2 of 8
01-03-2024 05:36:14 :::
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:028909
2024:PHHC:028909
CRWP-1924-2024 -3-
9. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties.
10. In Pardeep Singh’s (supra), a co-ordinate Bench of this Court
has held as under:-
” The Constitution of India is the Supreme Law of
the land. Right to life and liberty is enshrined therein
and is treated as a basic feature. The said right includes
the right of an individual to full development of his/her
potential in accordance with his/her choice and wish
and for such purpose, he/she is entitled to choose a
partner of his/her choice. The individual also has the
right to formalize the relationship with the partner
through marriage or to adopt the non-formal approach
of a liveinrelationship. The concept of live-in-
relationships has crept into our society from western
nations and initially, found acceptance in the
metropolitan cities, probably because, individuals felt
that formalization of a relationship through marriage
was not necessary for complete fulfillment. Education
played a great role in development of this concept.
Slowly, the concept has percolated into small towns and
villages also as is evident from this petition. This shows
that social acceptance for live-in-relationships is on the
increase. In law, such a relationship is not prohibited
nor does it amount to commission of any offence and
thus, in my considered view such persons are entitled to
equal protection of laws as any other citizen of the
country. The law postulates that the life and liberty of
every individual is precious and must be protected
irrespective of individual views.
Let us examine the issue from another view-point.
The Constitutional Courts grant protection to couples,
who have married against the wishes of their respective3 of 8
01-03-2024 05:36:14 :::
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:0289092024:PHHC:028909
CRWP-1924-2024 -4-
parents. They seek protection of life and liberty from
their parents and family members, who disapprove of
the alliance. An identical situation exits where the
couple has entered into a live-in-relationship. The only
difference is that the relationship is not universally
accepted. Would that make any difference? In my
considered opinion, it would not. The couple fears for
their safety from relatives in both situations and not
from the society. They are thus, entitled to the same
relief. No citizen can be permitted to take law in his own
hands in a country governed by Rule of Law.
The petition is accordingly, disposed of with
direction to respondent No.2 to consider the
representation dated 9.5.2021 (Annexure P3) and to
provide appropriate protection, if found necessary. It
shall be ensured that no harm comes either to the lives
or liberty of the petitioners.”
11. Thus, this Court is of the view that even if the petitioners are
living in a “Live in Relationship”, they are entitled to the protection of their
life and liberty. With respect to the aspect of the petitioners not being
divorced from their respective spouses, it is relevant to refer to a judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court dated 03.09.2021 passed in LPA-769-
2021 titled as “Ishrat Bano and another vs. State of Punjab and others”.
Ishrat Bano (petitioner therein) had filed Criminal Writ Petition no.7903 of
2021 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The
relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated
01.09.2021 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
” Prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a
direction to the official respondents to protect the life
and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondents4 of 8
01-03-2024 05:36:14 :::
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:0289092024:PHHC:028909
CRWP-1924-2024 -5-
No.5 to 9.
Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the
petitioners have performed the marriage and are
apprehending threat to their life and liberty at the hands
of respondents No.5 to 9. It is further submitted that
previously, the petitioner No.2 was married to one Alia
Hasan and the marriage was annulled by way of divorce
documents dated 26.07.2018, 27.08.2018 and
27.09.2018 i.e. vide 03 divorce deeds executed by
petitioner No.2 – Aslam Khan himself.
A perusal of these 03 divorce deeds relied upon by
the petitioners reveals that these are one sided
documents prepared by petitioner No.2 and there are
two common witnesses namely Shehnaz Ali and Feroz
Khan. There is no signature of the first wife of petitioner
No.2 namely Alia Hasan, giving her consent to such
divorce. Even otherwise, a perusal of these divorce
deeds further reveal that the marriage of petitioner No.2
was performed with Alia Hasan on 06.07.2013 and out
of the said wedlock two daughters namely Sohalia
Aslam and Amima Aslam were born, who are alive and
residing with the first wife of petitioner No.2 i.e. Alia
Hasan.
Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that
after this one sided customary divorce, the petitioner
No.2 has now performed marriage with petitioner No.1
on 20.08.2021. The Co-ordinate Bench while taking up
this petition has directed the petitioners to inform the
Court as to how much amount, the petitioner No.2 is
ready to give to his earlier wife to enable her to
maintain herself.
Despite taking 02 dates, no such proposal has
come.
5 of 8
01-03-2024 05:36:14 :::
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:0289092024:PHHC:028909
CRWP-1924-2024 -6-
This Court cannot ignore the fact that the Court
being legal guardian of the 02 minor girls, who are
living at the mercy of their mother – Alia Hasan, as the
petitioner No.2 is not only claiming to have divorced his
first wife Alia Hasan but he has also refused to maintain
and take care of the upbringing of his 02 minor
daughters aged 4½ years and 02 years.
On the face of it, the present petition is nothing
but a ploy to seek a seal of this Court regarding the
lustful and adulterous life of petitioner No.2 with
petitioner No.1 and the Court cannot be a party to the
same. The arguments of petitioner No.2 that he has a
right to perform second marriage under Muslim Law is
misconceived as this Court instead of taking an
academic view is more concerned about the welfare of
02 minor girls as it is clear that petitioner No.2 has
intentionally failed to maintain his first wife and 02
minor daughters.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed with
Rs.1,00,000/- costs to be paid to Alia Hasan.”
12. A perusal of above would show that the Court had primarily
observed that the divorce documents were one sided documents, thus,
prima-facie it appeared that the divorce was not legal. The matter was taken
up in appeal and the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated
03.09.2021 passed in LPA-769-2021 titled as “Ishrat Bano and another
vs. State of Punjab and others” held as under:-
” The aspect which we are considering and dealing
with is with regard to the threat to the life and liberty to
the appellants as has been asserted by them. No doubt,
in case a criminal case is registered against any of the
parties, the law should take its own course, however, the6 of 8
01-03-2024 05:36:14 :::
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:0289092024:PHHC:028909
CRWP-1924-2024 -7-
life and liberty of any person who has approached the
Court with such a grievance need to be taken care of and
the protection be provided as permissible in law. No
person can be permitted or allowed to take law in his
hands and therefore, keeping in view the said aspect, we
dispose of the present appeal by observing that the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Maler Kotla, shall take
into consideration the representation dated 17.08.2021
(Annexure P-5) submitted by the appellants and if some
substance is found therein, take appropriate steps in
accordance with law to ensure that the life and liberty is
not jeopardized of the appellants at the hands of the
private respondents. This direction shall not be
construed in any manner to restrain the official
respondents to proceed against the appellants in case
there is some criminal case registered against them. The
law shall take its own course and it shall be open to the
authorities/investigating agency to proceed against the
appellants, if required in law and in accordance
thereto.”
13. Thus, the Division Bench after considering the aspect of the
protection of the life and liberty being of paramount consideration and
without getting into the issue as to whether the relationship between the
parties was legal or not, even in spite of the fact that there was a criminal
case registered against the parties, however, granted them protection.
14. In view of the above discussion, it goes without saying that the
protection of life and liberty is a basic feature of the Constitution of India as
emanating out of Article 21. Every person, moreso, a major, has right to
live his/her life with a person of his/her choice subject to the law as
applicable. Whenever this Court, prima-facie, is satisfied that on account of
7 of 8
01-03-2024 05:36:14 :::
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:028909
2024:PHHC:028909
CRWP-1924-2024 -8-
some relatives/ persons being unhappy with the relationship between the
petitioners could cause harm to the life and liberty of the petitioners, then in
such circumstances, the Courts are required to pass necessary directions for
their protection.
15. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances and
without commenting upon the legality of the relationship between the
petitioners or expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court
deems it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with a direction to
respondent no.2 to consider the representation dated 21/26.02.2024
(Annexure P-3) and to assess the threat perception to the petitioners and
after considering the same, respondent No.2 shall take appropriate action in
accordance with law.
16. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with the abovesaid
directions.
17. It is, however, clarified that this order shall not debar the State
and/or any person aggrieved from initiating appropriate proceedings against
any or both of the petitioners, if any cause of action arises by the petitioners
‘living in’ together or if they are involved in any case.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
JUDGE
29.02.2024
Jitesh
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:028909
8 of 8
01-03-2024 05:36:14 :::
