SHAGUN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Fearing for their lives and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, the petitioners who claim to living in live-in relationship, despite the female being previously married against the wishes of the private respondents, and such marriage in subsistence, have come up before this Court seeking protection through the State, by invoking their fundamental rights of life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to the State to protect them.

(2.) Notices served upon the official respondents through the State's counsel. Given the nature of the order that this Court proposes to pass, neither the response of official respondents nor the issuance of notices to the private respondents is required.

(3.) Ld. Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of husband of the petitioner no 1 and submits that he has not been arraigned as a party and the petitioner no 1 re-married without divorcing him, leaving him in lurch. Ld. Counsel submits that no protection can be given to such a lady because the apprehended threat is a consequence of her own actions and violations.