CRWP-9818-2025 (O & M) ::1:: 107 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-9818-2025 (O & M) Date of decision :09.09.2023 Bohti Devi and anr. ... Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana and ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Gorav Rana, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Viney Phogat, DAG, Haryana. JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioners have approached this Court for issuance of necessary directions to respondents No.1 to 3 for protecting their lives and liberties which according to them are at stake because they are in a same sex live-in-relationship. The petitioners claim themselves to be majors. According to the copies of the Aadhar Cards alongwith matriculation examination certificate of petitioner No. and school leaving certificate of petitioner No.2 (Annexures P-1 to P-4 respectively), the exact date of birth of the petitioner No.1 is 12.08.2002 and the date of birth of the petitioner No.2 is 01.01.2000. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a marriage is not a must for providing security to a couple in a ‘live-in- relationship’ because protection qua life and liberty is sacrosanct and stands at the highest pedestal. He has also placed reliance upon orders passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in ‘Sarabjeet Kaur and another versus State of Punjab and others’ in CRWP-102-2022 decided SUKHPREET KAUR 2025.09.09 04:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRWP-9818-2025 (O & M) ::2:: on 07.01.2022, ‘Goutam Kumar and another versus State of Punjab and others’ in CRWP-8088-2021 decided on 26.08.2021, Bharti and Another Versus State of U.T., Chandigarh & others, CRWP-9470- 2020, decided on 19.11.2020 and Sandeep K.C. & another Versus State of Punjab & others, CWP-30774-2019, decided on 23.10.2019. Notice of motion to respondents No. 1 to 3. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Viney Phogat, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents. Since no order prejudicial to the interest of the parties is being passed, therefore, there is no necessity of inviting any response. At this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, as well as on the age and nature of the relationship between the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to direct respondent No. 2- Superintendent of Police, Kaithal, District Kaithal to look into the matter and pass an appropriate order on the representation allegedly filed by the petitioners before him on 03.09.2025 (Annexure P-5). It would be appreciated if necessary orders are passed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, if the petitioners are found to have been involved in any other case then this order shall not preclude the competent authority from taking lawful action against the petitioners. Disposed of. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 09.09.2025 sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No SUKHPREET KAUR 2025.09.09 04:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh