118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP No.5898 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.06.2025 Mahima Devi and another …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present:- Mr. Parmender Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * * MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J. (Oral) By way of filing the instant petition, both the petitioners have sought the indulgence of this Court for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing respondents No.2 and 3 to protect their lives and liberty as they apprehend threat to the same at the hands of respondents No.4 to 6 because they (petitioners) have solemnized their marriage against the wishes of these respondents. It has also been mentioned in this petition that a representation (Annexure P-5) has already been moved to respondent No.2 in this regard. 2. Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 3 only. 3. Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, has appeared on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 in this case in pursuance of the copies of the present petition having been sent to the respondent-State in advance and he accepts the notice on their behalf. SEEMA SHARMA 2025.06.02 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRWP No.5898 of 2025 -2- 4. Heard. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners restricts his prayer to the issuance of a direction to respondent No.2 to look into and take appropriate action on the said representation (Annexure P-5) of the petitioners. 6. Learned State counsel has no objection for the same. 7. Keeping in view the intent of the fundamental right as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India which ensures the protection of life and liberty to the citizens as well as the afore-discussed limited prayer as made by learned counsel for the petitioners and without commenting or expressing any opinion on the legality and validity of the marriage as stated to have been solemnized between the petitioners, respondent No.2-Superintendent of Police, Yamunanagar, is, hereby, directed to look into the above-referred representation (Annexure P-5) of the petitioners and if it is found that the petitioners genuinely deserve any protection, then to take appropriate action in accordance with law. 8. The petition in hand stands disposed of accordingly. 02.06.2025 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) seema JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether Reportable: No SEEMA SHARMA 2025.06.02 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment