HIMANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition under Article 226 Constitution of India, petitioners seek a writ of mandamus by way of directions to official respondent Nos.2 and 3 to protect their life and liberty from respondent Nos.4 and 5, as they are against petitioners' live-in-relationship.

(2.) Learned counsel contends that petitioner No.1 Himani, aged 18 years and petitioner No.2 Rohit Kumar aged 20 years and 06 months fell in love with each other, who decided to marry on attaining the age of majority. He states that when the relationship of the petitioners came to the knowledge of respondents No.4 and 5 (parents of petitioner No.1), they turned against their alliance and decided to marry her with a boy of their own choice, therefore, petitioner No.1 ran away from her house on 24/11/2021 and is now residing with petitioner No.2 in live in-relationship. He contends that the private respondents extended threats to the petitioners that they would implicate them in a false criminal case, therefore, a representation dtd. 24/11/2021 (Annexure P-5) was given to Superintendent of Police, District Yamuna Nagar, but till date, no action has been taken upon it, therefore, the necessary directions be issued by providing protection to the petitioners.

(3.) The society, for the last few years, has been experiencing profound changes in social values, especially amongst exuberant youngsters, who seldom in pursuit of absolute freedom, leave the company of their parents etc. to live with the person of their choice, and further in order to get the seal of the court to their alliance, they file petitions for protection by posing threat to their life and liberty. Such petitions are ordinarily based on the sole ground of apprehension of threat predicted against the disapproving parents or other close relatives of the girl only, as the decision of the couple is rarely opposed by the family members of the boy. Their right to live together is either based on their sudden, secretive and small destination marriage or upon live-in-relationship. Of-course, the aggrieved persons can avail the alternative remedy, but a large number of petitions land in the lap of this court as according to writ petitions, alternative remedy is less felicitous. Majority of such petitions contain formal symbolic averments, grounds with imaginary cause of action, and are rarely founded upon 'actual' or 'real' existence of threat, and these types of cases consume considerable time of this court, that too at the cost of many other cases waiting in line for hearing.