AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PRAVINDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, J. (Oral)
Prayer in the instant writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the official respondent Nos.2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners, and to restrain private respondents No.4 to 9 not interfere in the peaceful married life of the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners are major. Further submitted that they have solemnized marriage on 02.11.2026 at Pracheen Pasupati Nath Shiv Mandir Society (Regd. No.02375), Sector-4, Panchkula, Haryana, as per Hindu rites and rituals, against the wishes of their family members, who are now threatening and interfering in their matrimonial life. Further submits that it is the first marriage of both the petitioners and private respondents have strongly opposed the said marriage on the ground that petitioner No.2 belongs to a different caste. Hence, they are seeking protection in that regard and have approached this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition. They have also submitted a representation dated 03.11.2026 (Annexure P-5), to respondent No.2, wherein, they have expressed their apprehension for life and liberty.
On advance copy being supplied to the respondent-State, Mr. Vipul Sherwal, AAG, Haryana, appears on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State Counsel on instructions, submitted that statement of father of petitioner No.1 has been duly recorded which reveals that he has no objection, if his daughter i.e. petitioner No.1 continuous to live with petitioner No.2. He also fairly acknowledged that the aforesaid representation would be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law.
Although learned State counsel on instructions submits that the statement of father of the petitioner No.1 has been recorded vide which he has no objection in case petitioner No.1-Mansi continuous to live with petitioner No.2, but, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that police is still raiding their home and their liberty should be protected.
In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to decide the representation dated 03.11.2026 (Annexure P-5) within a period of 2 weeks, qua threat perception, and if there is any substance in it, necessary steps be taken in accordance with law, to ensure that the lives and liberty of the petitioners are not jeopardized at the hands of the private respondents.
However, it is clarified that this direction will not validate the marriage between the petitioners and will have no effect on any civil or criminal action, which could be initiated in the matter in accordance with law.