IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-1688 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.2.2010 Sukhmani Gill @ Sonia and another …. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Others …. Respondents Present: Mr. S.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioners with petitioners in person. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Mr. M.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.6 with respondent No.6 in person. **** S.S. SARON, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) for directing respondents No.1 to 4 to provide security to the petitioners and to save their life and liberty and property which is under threat from respondents No.5 and 6 who are the parents of petitioner No.1. A further prayer has been made for providing immediate police protection and security to the petitioners as they are facing threat to their life and property. The case was taken up on 19.1.2010 on which date it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they had on their own solemnized their marriage amongst themselves on 6.1.2010 at Gurudwara Shri Guru Gobind Singh Satsang (Regd.), Sector 21-C, Chandigarh. However, the marriage had been solemnized against the Crl. Misc. No. M-1688 of 2010 (O&M) [2] wishes of the parents (respondents No.5 and 6) of petitioner No.1. Notice of motion was issued for 17.2.2010. Before the said date, Mr. M.S. Sidhu, Advocate learned counsel for respondent No.6 filed Crl. Misc. Nos.4144 and 4145 of 2010 for preponing the date of hearing. It was alleged that petitioner No.1 has been suffering from effective disorder (Depressive episode) and she is under constant treatment of Navjot Hospital (A multi-speciality centre) of Badhni Kalan, Moga. Notice of the said Crl. Misc. applications was issued to the learned counsel for the petitioners for 5.2.2010 and petitioner No.1 was asked to be present in Court. On 5.2.2010, petitioner No.1 was asked to appear before the Director, Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), Sector-32, Chandigarh for her examination from the concerned psychiatry department of the hospital so as to ascertain her mental condition and particularly whether she has the capacity and capability to give consent for her marriage. In compliance to the said report, two reports have been given by the Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), Department of Psychiatry dated 10.2.2010 and 15.2.2010. In terms of the first report dated 10.2.2010, it has been mentioned that the details of earlier treatment received by petitioner No.1 from the private psychiatrist, Moga, Punjab were not available as well as there was no reliable person who could give detailed history. Therefore, at that stage, it was not possible to give clear opinion about the mental status of petitioner No.1. The department would need some more time before a final opinion was given regarding her mental state/illness. In terms of the second report dated 15.2.2010, it is submitted that on detailed assessment of personal record of petitioner No.1 including her mental state Crl. Misc. No. M-1688 of 2010 (O&M) [3] examination and psychological assessment by the clinical psychologist, there was no evidence of any mental illness at present. Further, the family members could not produce any evidence of her past treatment or details of symptoms suggestive of mental disorder. Therefore, in their opinion, patient does not have any mental illness which could affect her capacity and capability to consent for her marriage. Be that as it may, this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is not to embark upon an inquiry as to the mental capacity and capability of petitioner No.1 and the medical opinion was sought only for the purpose as to whether custody of the petitioner No.1 is to be with petitioner No.2 or whether her parents (respondents No.5 and 6) could claim her custody. Since there is an opinion given by the Government Medical College and Hospital that petitioner No.1 cannot be said to have any mental illness which may affect her capacity and capability to consent for her marriage, therefore, in case petitioner No.1 wishes to stay with petitioner No.2, this Court on the basis of material as on record would not be in a position to restrain her from staying with petitioner No.2. However, respondent No.6, mother of petitioner No.1, in case she is aggrieved, she may seek her other remedies in accordance with law and also get necessary inquisition issued in case so advised. It is well-known that where a procedure is provided for doing a particular act then that procedure alone is to be followed and the other procedures are forbidden. Therefore, it would not be within the domain of this Court to carry on further inquiry into the matter and Crl. Misc. No. M-1688 of 2010 (O&M) [4] respondent No.6, if so advised, may avail her other remedies in accordance with law. Petitioner No.1 has stated that she wants to stay with petitioner No.2 only. In the circumstances, the present petition is disposed of with petitioner No.1 leaving her free to live with petitioner No.2 and respondent No.6 to avail her other remedies in accordance with law. It is made clear that nothing stated herein shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the Court before whom necessary proceedings, if any, are initiated, it shall decide the same independently in accordance with law. Besides, the reports dated 10.2.2010 and 15.2.2010 as submitted by GMCH, Sector -32, Chandigarh shall be taken as only tentative medical reports. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE February 23, 2010 amit