DAYA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are yet to attain the marriageable age, have approached this court by way of this criminal writ petition under Article 226 Constitution of India for issuance of directions to the official respondent Nos.2 to 4 for protection of their life and liberty from their estranged family members, who are opposing their live-in-relationship.

(2.) The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of this petition are that petitioner No.1-Daya Ram born on 18/4/2001 (20 years and 2 months old) and petitioner No.2-Reenu born on 25/10/2006 (14 years and 8 months old), knew each other for the last one year, who with the passage of time fell in love, but the parents of Reenu opposed their relationship. As parents of Reenu were making arrangements to solemnize her marriage with a boy of their choice and upon learning this, she requested them not to do so, however, the parents remained adament on their decision. The petitioner No.2 left her house on 1/6/2021 and contacted petitioner No.l and decided to reside together in live-in-relationship till they attain the marriageable age. As per pleadings, it is apprehended that the parents of petitioner No.2 would not spare them as they received continuous threats, whereupon they sent a representation dtd. 3/6/2021 (Annexure P-3) to the Superintendent of Police, Sirsa by post, and prayed for stern action against the parents of Reenu. Since the representation has failed to evoke any response from the official respondents, as till date no protection has been provided, therefore, the petitioners have approached this court for issuance of necessary directions.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are mature enough to understand good and bad, who are in love with each other and have decided to marry, but their proposal was turned down by the parents and the other relatives of Reenu, so they were left with no other alternative but to live together in live-in-relationship. He submits that till date, there is no physical intimacy between the petitioners as they are waiting to attain the statutory marriageable age, therefore, the private respondents have no right to interfere in their life. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the decision of this court rendered in Preeti and another Versus State of Haryana and others and Soniya and another Versus State of Haryana and others Annexures P-4 and P-5 respectively.