Not being of marriageable age would not deprive live-in couple of their fundamental right to protection of life: High Court

Read Order: Neharika & And vs State of Punjab & Ors

LE Staff

Chandigarh, July 8, 2021: Granting protection to a live-in couple even as one of them is below the legal marriageable age, the Punjab and Haryana High court on Thursday held that it is the bounden duty of the state, as per Constitutional obligations cast upon it, to protect the life and liberty of every citizen.

“A mere fact that petitioner No.2 is not of a marriageable age would not deprive the petitioners of their fundamental right as envisaged in the Constitution, being citizens of India,” said the bench of Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill.

The court made these remarks on the plea of a live-in couple, where the woman (petitioner no. 1) is an adult and thus legally allowed to marry but the man (petitioner No.2), though major, has not attained the marriageable age of 21 years set for males. The minimum age for marriage for females in India is 18 years.

The petitioners, who belong to Punjab’s Faridkot district, said they have been living together but are getting threats from their family members who don’t approve of their live-in relationship. 

They claimed that they have already submitted a representation dated July 5, 2021 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot, for redressal of their grievance, but no action has been taken thereupon.

They said they are living in constant danger as they have every apprehension that their family members would catch hold of them and might go to the extent of killing them. The petitioners are, therefore, running from pillar to post for protection of their life and liberty, the plea said.

Justice Gill, in the order, stated that “Article 21 of the Constitution stipulates protection of life and liberty to every citizen and that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.

“It is the bounden duty of the State as per the Constitutional obligations caste upon it to protect the life and liberty of every citizen. Mere fact that petitioner No.2 is not of a marriageable age would not deprive the petitioners of their fundamental right as envisaged in the Constitution, being citizens of India,” the bench held.

The bench disposed of the petition with a direction to Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot, to decide the representation moved by the petitioners in accordance with the law and grant protection to them, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived.

He added that it is made clear that this order shall not be taken to protect the petitioners from legal action for violation of law if any is committed by them.