High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pooja Sharma And Another vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh And … on 6 October, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pooja Sharma And Another vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh And … on 6 October, 2009
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH.

                                    Criminal Misc. No.M-27807 of 2009 (O&M)

                                    Date of Decision: 6.10.2009.

Pooja Sharma and another
                                                      ....Petitioners

               Versus

Union Territory of Chandigarh and others
                                                       ...Respondents

CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

Present:-      Mr. Manoj Tanwar, Advocate
               for the petitioners.

RAJESH BINDAL J.

                        ****

Prayer made in the present petition is for protection of life and
liberty of the petitioners, who had married against the consent of their parents.
The petitioners are present in person in Court. Petitioners have appended
Marriage Certificate Annexures P-3 issued by Maharshi Dayanand Manav Jagriti
Vaidik Sewa Sanstha, Chandigarh. As per Annexure P-1, the driving licence
issued by Licencing Authority, Chandigarh, the date of birth of petitioner No.1 is
27.3.1981 and as such she was more than 18 years of age on the date of
marriage which according to the petitioners was soelmnised on 27.9.2009 They
are apprehending their arrest and also harassment by the police and family
members of petitioner No. 1, as they were not agreeable to the marriage.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that both the
petitioners are major and have married against the wishes of their parents and
as such they are fearing threat to their life and liberty.

Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of with the direction to
Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh that in case the petitioners move
an application before the aforesaid authority to provide protection to their life and
liberty, the same shall be considered and if required, necessary protection be
provided to the petitioners. This order may not be treated as a seal of the Court
on the marriage of the parties.



                                                   (RAJESH BINDAL)
6.10.2009                                                JUDGE
Reema