Jyoti Saini And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 24 March, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                   Crl. Misc. No. M-8082 of 2009


                                       Date of decision: March 24, 2009


Jyoti Saini and another
                                                         ..... Petitioners

             Versus

State of Haryana and others
                                                         ..... Respondents



Present:     Ms. Kirandeep Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners.

                                ****


S.S. SARON, J.

The petitioners have solemnized their marriage amongst themselves on

20.3.2009 at Balmiki Mandir, Sector 24-C, Chandigarh according to Hindu rites. The

marriage certificate (Annexure P4) and the photographs (Annexure P3) showing the

solemnization of marriage have been placed on record. The marriage that has been

solemnized by the petitioners is not to the liking of the parents (respondents No4 and

5) of petitioner No.1.

It is submitted that both the petitioners are major. The date of birth of

petitioner No.1 as per her affidavit attached to the Crl. Misc. petition is 22.3.1989.

The date of birth of petitioner No.2 is 23.2.1983. The marriage has been solemnized

by the petitioners of their own sweet will.

Both the petitioners are present in Court and are identified by their

counsel. It is submitted by petitioner No.1 that she has solemnized her marriage with

petitioner No.2 of her own free will and without any kind of pressure or undue

influence.

Crl. Misc. No. M-8082 of 2009 [2]

Mr. Ashok Singh Chaudhary, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf

of respondents No.4 and 5. He submits that the parents of petitioner No.1 may be

given time so as to counsel her (petitioner No.1).

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances that the marriage which has

been solemnized is not shown to be improper or illegal in any manner as both the

petitioners are major, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the

parents of petitioner No.1 would only harass the petitioners.

In the circumstances, the criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of

with a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 that in case the petitioners approach any of

them setting out their grievances as have been made in the present petition, the same

would be looked into by them independently and in accordance with law.

(S.S. SARON)
JUDGE
March 24, 2009
amit