‘Completely misplaced’: High Court on newly weds’ petition for protection from family

Read Order: Ramandeep Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others 

Vivek Gupta

Chandigarh, July 15, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the petition filed by a newly wed couple seeking protection from their family members was “vague and lacked material particulars regarding the alleged threat”.  

The petitioners filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of directions to police authorities for providing protection to their life and liberty and further restraining their family members from interfering in their peaceful life.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioners knew each other for about two years and decided to get married. However, their alliance was not accepted by the family members of the woman.

According to the petitioners, they got married with their free will and informed their family members, who threatened them. They further submitted that the family members are likely to implicate them in a false case too. The petitioners also pointed out that a representation was already submitted to Senior Superintendent of Police, Mohali, however, till date no action has been taken.

During the course of the hearing, it came to the HC’s notice that talks regarding compromise between the parties were going on and there seems to be a possibility that the parties may arrive at an amicable settlement.

Deciding the matter, the bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj stated that “considering the above background of this case, this Court is of the opinion that the association of the petitioners is known to private respondents for a long time and prior to the present representation dated 06.07.2021, no complaint whatsoever was made by petitioners to the Police”.

“A reading of the representation also makes it clear that the same is vague and lacking material particulars regarding the alleged threat. Even if it is assumed that their family members are likely to lodge a complaint against the petitioners, it cannot be construed as a threat as they are also free to avail their remedy in law in case they feel that some offence has been committed,” stated the Bench.

“Above all, parties are in touch with each other for an amicable settlement, therefore, it is clear that the petition is completely misplaced. Resultantly, no ground is made out for exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction,” the high court held.