CRWP-10549-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 127 CRWP-10549-2025 Decided on: 26.09.2025 Pari and Another ......Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Ankush Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amish Sharma, AAG, Haryana. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. 1. By filing present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek necessary protection of their lives and personal liberty in view of the fact that they are living in a live-in relationship and are under eminent threats at the hands of respondents No.4 to 7. PARTICULARS OF PETITIONERS: Petitioner No. Name & parantage DoB or Age 1. Pari d/o Bishamber Singh 19 years 2. Aryan s/o Dharmender Kumar 19 years 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although both petitioners are major and are living in a live-in relationship against the wishes of their family members, who are allegedly threatening them and interfering in their personal lives. Hence, the petitioners are seeking protection in that regard and have approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition. They have also submitted a representation dated 24.09.2025 (Annexure P-3), wherein, they have expressed their apprehension. Deepak Patwal 2025.09.27 13:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-10549-2025 2 3. Notice of motion to the official respondents only. 4. On asking of the Court, learned State counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent – State. Let requisite copies of the complete paper book be supplied to learned State counsel during course of the day. 5. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-The Senior Superintendent of Police, Kaithal, Haryana to look into the representation dated 24.09.2025 (Annexure P-3), qua threat perception, and if there is any substance in it, take necessary steps, in accordance with law, to ensure that the lives and liberty of the petitioners are not jeopardized at the hands of the private respondents. 6. However, this direction will not validate the live-in status 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. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE September 26, 2025 Deepak Patwal Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO Deepak Patwal 2025.09.27 13:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document