Punjab & Haryana HC says Aadhar Card not firm proof of age while granting protection to couple

Read Order- Navdeep Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others

Tulip Kanth

Chandigarh, September 16, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted protection to a couple and given a direction to ensure that the lives and liberty of the petitioners are not put to any harm or threat at the hands of the relative- respondents, or at their behest.

By this petition, the petitioners sought protection of life and liberty at the hands of respondents (relatives), upon the petitioners having married each other (as contended) against the wishes of the said respondents.

The Petitioner’s counsel mainly stated that neither are the petitioners in any prohibited relationship to each other, nor has any of them been married earlier. The counsel also stated that he had obtained specific instructions from the petitioners in that regard.

Now deciding upon the petitioners’ grievance, the Bench of Justice Amol Rattan Singh observed that protection of life and liberty is a fundamental right of every citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Hence, without making any comment whatsoever on the validity of the marriage, or otherwise, this petition has been disposed of with a direction to ensure that the lives and liberty of the petitioners are not put to any harm or threat at the hands of the aforesaid respondents, or at their behest.

The Bench specifically mentioned that since there was no firm proof of age of either of the petitioners other than their Aadhar  Cards, which is actually not a firm proof of age, if any of the petitioners are found to be below the marriageable age in terms of the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, this order shall not be construed to be a bar on any proceedings initiated under that Act, the offences committed under that Act being cognizable in terms of Section 15 thereof.

The Bench also noted that that if any of the averments made in the petition was found to be incorrect, specifically with regard to either the petitioners being in any prohibited relationship to each other, or as regards their previous marital status, this order would not be construed to be a bar on proceedings initiated as per law.