COCP No. 1111 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … COCP No. 1111 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: October 7, 2009 Kawaljit Kaur d/o Amrik Singh .. Petitioner Versus Ram Singh and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Ms. Shweta Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.C.Berry, Addl.A.G.Punjab for respondnet Nos.1 Mr. R.P.Arya, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4 .. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner is originally resident of Gurdaspur and has migrated to Los Angeles, California (USA). As she had fallen into love with one Iqbaldeep Singh son of Bhajan Singh resident of Kapurthala through Internet, she made a request to her parents to get her married with Iqbaldeep Singh but they refused to do the same. Ultimately, finding no option, she decided to came back to India to get married with Iqbaldeep Singh. Her marriage was solemnized on 29.1.2009 according to “Sikh Rites” at village Nangal Lubana, District Kapurthala. It is the further case of the petitioner that after her marriage, she along with her husband went to the house of her uncles(respondent Nos.2 and 3) on 29.1.2009. Since, she had solemnized the marriage against the wishes of her parents, they threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. The petitioner reported the matter to Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala on the same day and requested for protection of life and liberty. Since no protection was afforded to her by the police officials, she approached this court vide COCP No. 1111 of 2009 2 Criminal Misc. No. 2894 of 2009 for giving the direction to the respondents to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner along with her husband at the hands of her parents as well as uncles. The aforesaid Criminal Misc. Application was disposed of vide order dated 31.1.2009 with a direction to Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala to look into the matter and take appropriate measures if so required . It has been further stated by the petitioner that she got her marriage registered with the Registrar of Marriages at Jalandhar vide Registration No. 2649 dated 10.2.2009 as she was to go back to her country at Los Angeles, California(USA). The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that her mother reached India and a meeting was fixed on 2.2.2009 between both the parties where the mother (respondent No.4) as well as the uncles(respondent Nos.2 and 3) of the petitioner had shown their consent to the marriage. Her mother and uncles took her to their house where she was maltreated and threatened to face dire consequence and asked her to accompany her to foreign. On refusal to accept the same, the respondents threatened the petitioner that she will be involved in the one and the other case and she will not be able to return to Los Angeles, California (USA). According to the petitioner, the aforesaid incident was reported by her to S.S.P. Kapurthala on 1.4.2009 as her mother wanted to involve her in one or the other case by moving frivolous application. The petitioner still apprehends danger to her life and liberty at the hands of her parents as well as uncles as they have willfully and intentionally violated the order dated 31.1.2009. Thus the petitioner approached this court contending that despite the orders passed by this court on 31.1.2009 in Criminal Misc. No. 2894 of 2009, respondent No.1 has neither looked into the matter nor taken any action against the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and the petitioner is still apprehending danger to her life and liberty. Vide order dated 30.5.2009, notice of motion was issued to the respondents and process against respondent Nos.2 to 4 was ordered to be issued through dasti also. COCP No. 1111 of 2009 3 In response to the show cause notice issued by this court, respondent Nos.2 and 3 has filed reply by way of an affidavit of respondent No.2 wherein it has been stated that the aforesaid respondents have nothing to do with the petitioner or her marriage. In his affidavit respondent No.1 has stated that the complaint of the petitioner dated 1.4.2009 was thoroughly inquired and it was found that there is no truth in the allegations. It may be pointed out here that respondent No.4(mother of petitioner) is admittedly residing out of country and has not been served by the petitioner. Even from the memo. of parties, it is clearly made out that the petitioner herself is residing in Los Angeles California, (USA). Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this court has failed to understand as to under what circumstances, the petitioner who is residing in foreign country is apprehending any threat to her life and liberty at the hands of respondent Nos.2 and 3 who have nothing to do with the petitioner. Moreover, from the perusal of the order dated 31.1.2009,I find that no direction was issued against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 by this court and a direction was issued to the SSP, Kapurthala to look into the complaint of the petitioner and take appropriate measures. According to the reply filed on behalf of SSP, Kapurthala, the allegations levelled by the petitioner are baseless. Thus, I find no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 10000/-. Rule discharged. The petitioner is directed to deposit the aforesaid costs with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh within two months from today. October 7, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE