How Are 'Shops' Facilitating Marriage Of Run-Away Couples? It's A Sacrosanct Relationship, Can't Be Left Unattended: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the AAG of Haryana to examine as to under what authority "shops" situated at Panchkula are facilitating marriages of run-away couple without verifying their antecedents, observing that "marriage is not only a contract between two individuals but a sacrosanct relationship, which cannot be left unattended."

Justice Sandeep Moudgil remarked,

"These facts cannot be ignored by this Court, as marriage is not only a contract between two individuals but a sacrosanct relationship, which cannot be left unattended, as these instances concern not only morality but is also disturbing and damaging the social fabric by abusing the provisions of the Constitution of India while invoking criminal writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

Justice Moudgil further said that the Court is vested with jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution and is also duty bound "to ensure, as a guardian of the Constitution, the life and liberty not only of the petitioners but also of the private respondents (family members) as well to be taken care of under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which also includes the right to life to live with dignity and honour."

It is to be ensured that none of the parties to the present lis losses that dignity and honour to live in the society, the judge added.

These observations were made while hearing the protection plea of a run-away couple, seeking protection from the family members of the woman, as they have stated to solemnized marriage against their wishes.

Justice Moudgil noted that the organisation where marriage was solemnised "is stated to be registered though unaware about the statue under which it stands registered."

The Court also noted that the petitioners were not even aware that the persons performing the rituals for solemnizing the marriage is authorized or not as per the provisions of Sections 5 and 7 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

It pointed out that the "jaimala" used in the photograph of the couple performing marriage ceremony was used in "multiple cases" at the "same shop."

Court said in case the petitioners establish their case and the status report filed by the State supports the allegations made in the instant petition, the petitioners may be entitled for protection, "but not without adjudicating the question after going through the status report and also the response of private respondents as well."

The bench directed Gurbir Singh Dhillon, AAG, Haryana, "to get the factual aspects examined through the Commissioner of Police, Panchkula, as to under which authority these 3-4 shops situated at Mansa Devi Complex, Sector 4, Panchkula are indulged in this activity without verifying antecedents of such run away couples, who are at their tender age may be adult around 20-22 years of life having no witness to the said marriage either out of their close relatives or from their friend circle."

While posting the matter for March 06, the Court directed the SSP, to "ensure that no harm is caused to the lives and liberty of the petitioners, till the next date of hearing, who shall also ensure the deployment of one police official of the rank of Head Constable, provided that the present petitioners are residing at their native place."

"The expenditure for such police official so deputed shall be borne by the petitioners as per rules applicable including the DA as well as meal to be provided through out the day as and when so required by the said police officials," the Court further directed.

Case Title: X v. State of Punjab & Ors

Prince Pushpinder Rana, Advocate for the petitioners.