Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 78093 (PNJ)

MUNJAL AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

CRWP/7465/2025 · 2025-07-11

Rajesh Bhardwaj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

134 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-7465-2025 DECIDED ON: 11.07.2025 MUNJAL AND ANR. .....PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Talim Hussain, Advocate for the petitioners. RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to respondents No.1 to 3 for providing protection of life and liberty and security to petitioners, who are married since 27.08.2023 and further restraining respondents No.4 to 7 or any other person from interfering in the married life of the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that both the petitioners are major and have married against the wishes of respondents No.4 to 7. They apprehend danger from respondents No.4 to 7. Their marriage certificate (Nikahnama) evidencing their marriage is on record as Annexure P-3. The petitioners have submitted a representation dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure P-4) to respondent No.2. 3. Notice of motion to the official respondents only. 4. Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. AG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the State. POONAM NEGI 2025.07.11 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-7465-2025 -2- 5. Without entering upon an exercise to evaluate the evidentiary value of the documents placed on the file, I dispose of the petition with a direction to respondent no.2-Superintendent of Police, Palwal to decide the representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioners and grant them protection, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived. 6. It is clarified that this order shall not be taken to grant immunity to the petitioners from legal action for violation of law, if any, committed by them. This order would not be understood having expressed any opinion whatsoever by this Court on the validity of the marriage of the petitioners. (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 11.07.2025 JUDGE Poonam Negi Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No POONAM NEGI 2025.07.11 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document