113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-3821-2025 Date of Decision:- 17.04.2025 Sapna and another ....Petitioners Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present:- Mr. Deepak Kumar Bartia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Samir Rathaur, APP, U.T. Chandigarh for respondents No. 1 to 3. ***** AMARJOT BHATTI, J. (Oral) 1. Petitioners Sapna and Rajnish Kumar have filed present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing respondents No. 1 to 3 to protect life and liberty of petitioners from the hands of private respondents No. 4 to 6, who are family members of petitioner No. 1. 2. It is submitted that both petitioners are major. As per copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioner No. 1 (Annexure P/1), her date of birth is 17.08.1999. On the other hand, as per copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioner No.2 (Annexure P/2), his date of birth is 05.05.2003. They had performed marriage on 14.04.2025. Copy of Certificate of Marriage is Annexure P/3 and photographs regarding performing of their marriage are Annexure P/4. Petitioners also moved representation to Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, which is Annexure P/5. Petitioners had performed marriage without consent and wishes of family members of petitioner No. 1 and as LALIT SHARMA such they are receiving threats from respondents No. 4 to 6. 2025.04.17 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-3821-2025 -2- 3. Notice of motion to official respondents No. 1 to 3 only. 4. On advance notice, Mr. Samir Rathaur, APP, UT, Chandigarh accepts notice on behalf of official respondents No. 1 to 3. Complete copy of paperbook along with supporting documents is already supplied. It is pointed out that they have already recorded statements of both petitioners where they have stated that they do not apprehend any threat as far now. 5. Considering the aforesaid statements of petitioners, as far now, there is no threat perception to the life of petitioners. However, official respondents No. 2 and 3 are directed to dispose of representation given by petitioners dated 14.04.2025 (Annexure P/5) as per law and in case there is any threat perception, then life and liberty of petitioners be protected. 6. Petition is accordingly disposed of. 7. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed of accordingly. (AMARJOT BHATTI) JUDGE 17.04.2025 lalit Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No LALIT SHARMA 2025.04.17 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document