Right of a major couple to live-together cannot be denied: Punjab & Haryana High Court

 on 30 12 117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP 10828 2020Date of decision : 23.12.2020 PRIYAPREET KAUR AND ANOTHER ... Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present: Mr. Yashpal Thakur Advocate for the petitioner. ALKA SARIN J.Heard through video conferencing. The present criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of fundamental rights of the petitioners seeking protection of their life and liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India at the hands of respondent Nos.4 to 6. In brief the relevant facts as stated in the petition are that both the petitioners are major the date of birth of petitioner No.1 being 29.06.2001 and that of petitioner No.2 being 08.10.2000 as per their age proofs2 Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the life and liberty of the petitioners is in grave danger at the hands of respondent Nos.4 to 6. It is further contended that the petitioners have also moved a representation dated 20.12.2020to the Senior Superintendent of Police District Fatehgarh Sahib Punjab16 SCC 368 the Supreme Court reiterated the right of choice of an adult. It was inter alia held: “86. The right to marry a person of one s choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution. The Constitution on 30 12 CRWP 10828 20203 guarantees the right to life. This right cannot be taken away except through a law which is substantively and procedurally fair just and reasonable. Intrinsic to the liberty which the Constitution guarantees as a fundamental right is the ability of each individual to take decisions on matters central to the pursuit of happiness. Matters of belief and faith including whether to believe are at the core of constitutional liberty. The Constitution exists for believers as well as for agnostics. The Constitution protects the ability of each individual to pursue a way of life or faith to which she or he seeks to adhere. Matters of dress and of food of ideas and ideologies of love and partnership are within the central aspects of identity. The law may regulatethe conditions of a valid marriage as it may regulate the situations in which a marital tie can be ended or annulled. These remedies are available to parties to a marriage for it is they who decide best on whether they should accept each other into a marital tie or continue in that relationship. Society has no role to play in determining our choice of partners.” The petitioners are seeking protection of their life and liberty as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides for protection of life and personal liberty and further lays down that no person shall be deprived of his or her personal liberty except as per the procedure established by law. No doubt petitioner No.2 is not of marriageable age however admittedly he is a major. Merely because of the fact that petitioner No.2 is not of a marriageable age the petitioners cannot possibly be denied enforcement of their fundamental rights as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners both being major have decided to live together in a live in relationship and there possibly may not be any legally justifiable reason for the respondents to object to the same. In view of the above and without expressing any opinion with regard to the veracity of the contents of the petition and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners the Senior Superintendent of Police Fatehgarh Sahib Punjab4 No.2) is directed to decide the representation dated 20.12.2020and take necessary action as per law. It is however made clear that this order shall neither be construed as an expression of opinion on the veracity of the contents of the present petition nor as a stamp of this Court on the validity of the alleged live inrelationship of the petitioners and shall have no effect on any other civil or criminal proceedings if any instituted pending against them. Disposed off accordingly. December 23 2020 kv JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking non speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES NO 

Summary: Merely because the boy is not of marriageable age (though major) the right of the Petitioner to live together cannot be denied. Further, “Parents cannot compel a child to live a life on their terms and that every adult individual has a right to live his or her life as he or she deems fit.” This ratio was laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court presided over by J. Alkasarin in the case of Priyapreet Kaur &amp; Anr. Vs. State of Punjab &amp; Ors., [CRWP-10828-2020]. The brief facts of this case are that a Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for seeking protection of right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The two Petitioners in this case have attained the age of legal majority and having been living together since a year and wish to get married. However, the parents of Petitioner No. 1 were not happy about this relationship due to which there was a feud between the two families. Further, the parents of Petitioner No. 1 locked her in a room, snatched her phone, gave her severe beatings, and warned her to not have any relationships with Petitioner No. 2. Later, Petitioner No. 1 left her house and decided to live with the Petitioner No. 2. The parents of the Petitioner did not approve of this relationship and are constantly threatening the Petitioner with dire consequences. The Petitioner has also informed the Police Superintendent, but no action has been taken so far. Hence, the Present Petition has been filed. The Court observed that, “She is well within her right to decide for herself what is good for her and what is not. She has decided to take a step to be in a live-in-relationship with petitioner No.2 who is also major, though may not be of a marriageable age. Be that as it may, the fact remains that both the petitioners in the present case are major and have a right to live their life on their own terms.” The Court further observed that, “Admittedly, he is a major. Merely because of the fact that petitioner No.2 is not of a marriageable age the petitioners cannot possibly be denied enforcement of their fundamental rights as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, both being major, have decided to live together in a live-in relationship and there possibly may not be any legally justifiable reason for the respondents to object to the same.”