The Punjab and Haryana High Court has opined that dispute regarding the validity of marriage cannot be a ground for denial of protection to the couple facing threats from relatives opposed to such marriage (Farzana Begum @ Aman v. State of Punjab). .The order was passed by Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri on a plea moved by an inter-faith couple seeking protection.“The scope of the present petition is only regarding the protection of life and liberty of the petitioners and, therefore, the validity of the marriage cannot be a ground for denial of such protection,” the Court observed..It, therefore, directed that the concerned police officer to look into the representation of the couple and to ensure protection of their life and liberty. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is 21 years of age and petitioner no.2 is 22 years of age and both of them are of marriageable age.It was submitted that they got married to each other out of their free consent and although the petitioner no.1 was earlier Muslim by religion, she got converted into Hindu religion and got married to petitioner no.2..The relatives were opposed to the marriage and the petitioners were facing threats from them.The counsel contended that even if the marriage between the petitioners inter-se was not valid, the right of protection of life and liberty is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, necessary directions should be issued to protect the lives of petitioners..The Court agreed with the argument and ordered police to take necessary action.“It is made clear that the present directions are being issued only for the purpose of protection of life and liberty of the petitioners and does not reflect anything whatsoever on the validity of the marriage,” the Court clarified while disposing of the plea..In the recent past, Punjab and Haryana High Court has passed conflicting orders as regards validity of live-in-relationships and whether couples who are in such relationships need to be given protection by State authorities. .On May 18, Justice Jaishree Thakur ruled that although the concept of a live-in relationship may not be acceptable to all, it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal one or that it constitutes an offence. She, therefore, directed the police to decide on the representation of the petitioners for protection and grant them protection if there is any threat to their life and liberty..That same day, Justice Sudhir Mittal highlighted that live-in relationships are not prohibited prohibited in law and that persons who enter into such relationships were entitled to equal protection of the laws.In contrast, on May 11, Justice HS Madaan described live-in-relationships as being morally and socially unacceptable. In an order passed the next day, Justice Anil Kshetarpal turned down a similar petition, stating if the couple was granted protection, it would disturb the social fabric of the society..[Read Order]
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has opined that dispute regarding the validity of marriage cannot be a ground for denial of protection to the couple facing threats from relatives opposed to such marriage (Farzana Begum @ Aman v. State of Punjab). .The order was passed by Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri on a plea moved by an inter-faith couple seeking protection.“The scope of the present petition is only regarding the protection of life and liberty of the petitioners and, therefore, the validity of the marriage cannot be a ground for denial of such protection,” the Court observed..It, therefore, directed that the concerned police officer to look into the representation of the couple and to ensure protection of their life and liberty. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is 21 years of age and petitioner no.2 is 22 years of age and both of them are of marriageable age.It was submitted that they got married to each other out of their free consent and although the petitioner no.1 was earlier Muslim by religion, she got converted into Hindu religion and got married to petitioner no.2..The relatives were opposed to the marriage and the petitioners were facing threats from them.The counsel contended that even if the marriage between the petitioners inter-se was not valid, the right of protection of life and liberty is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, necessary directions should be issued to protect the lives of petitioners..The Court agreed with the argument and ordered police to take necessary action.“It is made clear that the present directions are being issued only for the purpose of protection of life and liberty of the petitioners and does not reflect anything whatsoever on the validity of the marriage,” the Court clarified while disposing of the plea..In the recent past, Punjab and Haryana High Court has passed conflicting orders as regards validity of live-in-relationships and whether couples who are in such relationships need to be given protection by State authorities. .On May 18, Justice Jaishree Thakur ruled that although the concept of a live-in relationship may not be acceptable to all, it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal one or that it constitutes an offence. She, therefore, directed the police to decide on the representation of the petitioners for protection and grant them protection if there is any threat to their life and liberty..That same day, Justice Sudhir Mittal highlighted that live-in relationships are not prohibited prohibited in law and that persons who enter into such relationships were entitled to equal protection of the laws.In contrast, on May 11, Justice HS Madaan described live-in-relationships as being morally and socially unacceptable. In an order passed the next day, Justice Anil Kshetarpal turned down a similar petition, stating if the couple was granted protection, it would disturb the social fabric of the society..[Read Order]
