107 107 107 107 IN THE HIGH COURT OF IN THE HIGH COURT OF IN THE HIGH COURT OF IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA PUNJAB AND HARYANA PUNJAB AND HARYANA PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH CRWP CRWP CRWP CRWP----3776 3776 3776 3776----2025 2025 2025 2025 Date of Decision:- 17.04.2025 AMANJOT KAUR AND ANOTHER AMANJOT KAUR AND ANOTHER AMANJOT KAUR AND ANOTHER AMANJOT KAUR AND ANOTHER ....Petitioners Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present:- Mr. Aman Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vinay Kumar Malhotra, DAG, Punjab. ***** AMARJOT BHATTI, J. 1. Petitioners Amanjot Kaur and Jagdeep Singh have filed present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to protect their life and liberty from the hands of respondent Nos. 4 to 7, who are parents and sisters of petitioner No.1. 2. It is submitted that both petitioners are major. Date of birth of petitioner No.1 is 18.12.2002. Copies of her Aadhar card and passport are Annexure P-1. Date of birth of petitioner No.2 is 24.01.2001. Copies of his Aadhar card and passport are Annexure P-2. They had performed marriage on 08.04.2025. Copy of their marriage certificate and photographs are Annexures P-3 and P-4 respectively. Petitioners also moved representation to Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana which is Annexure P-5. Petitioners had performed marriage without the consent and wishes of parents and sisters of petitioner No.1, from whom, petitioners are receiving threats. SANDEEP KUMAR 2025.04.17 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP CRWP CRWP CRWP----3776 3776 3776 3776----2025 2025 2025 2025 ----2222---- 3. Notice of motion to official respondents. 4. On advance notice, Mr. Vinay Kumar Malhotra, DAG, Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of State. 5. Considering nature of litigation, no purpose would be served by serving notice to private respondents. 6. I have considered facts narrated in the petition, according to which both petitioners are major and they have performed marriage against the wishes of parents and sisters of petitioner No.1, as a result they are apprehending threats from the hands of respondent Nos.4 to 7. It is duty of police to protect life and liberty of petitioners. Therefore, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider the representation of petitioners dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-5) and protect life and liberty of petitioners from the hands of respondent Nos.4 to 7, considering threat perception, with further direction to maintain their privacy and dignity. 7. Aforesaid protection order will have no bearing on the legality and validity of marriage and it will not protect them in case there is any violation of law or pending legal proceedings. 8. Petition is accordingly disposed of. 9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly as well. (AMARJOT BHATTI) JUDGE 17.04.2025 snd Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No. Whether reportable: Yes/No SANDEEP KUMAR 2025.04.17 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document