The Punjab & Haryana High Court has delivered a significant ruling on the state's obligation to protect adult couples who marry against their families' wishes. While directing police to assess threat perception, the Court clarified that such protection does not extend to immunity from criminal proceedings or validate the marriage's legality. This judgment reinforces the right to life and liberty under Article 226 while demarcating the boundaries of judicial intervention in personal relationships.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Parminder and another individual, both adults, approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They sought a writ of mandamus directing the state authorities to protect their life and liberty from their family members. The petitioners alleged that they had married against their families' wishes and were apprehensive about their safety due to the alleged inaction of the police.
Procedural History
- 11.03.2026: The petitioners submitted a representation (Annexure P-5) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Kapurthala, seeking protection.
- 12.03.2026: The petitioners filed the present writ petition, contending that their representation had not been acted upon.
The Parties' Positions
- Petitioners: Contended that they had attained the age of majority and married each other. They relied on Aadhar Cards (Annexures P-1 and P-2) and a Marriage Certificate (Annexure P-3) to establish their marital status and age. They sought protection from their families, who allegedly posed a threat to their lives and liberty.
- State: Represented by the Deputy Advocate General, who accepted notice on behalf of the official respondents.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether the state is obligated to provide protection to adult couples who marry against their families' wishes, and if so, what are the limits of such protection under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
The petitioners argued that:
- They had attained the age of majority and were entitled to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Their marriage was valid, as evidenced by the Marriage Certificate and Marriage Photographs (Annexures P-3 and P-4).
- The state had a duty to protect their lives and liberty, especially when they had submitted a representation to the police seeking protection.
For the Respondents
The state, through the Deputy Advocate General, did not contest the petitioners' claim for protection but did not address the legal nuances of the case.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the following key principles:
-
Right to Life and Liberty: The Court acknowledged that the petitioners, as adults, were entitled to protection under Article 21 of the Constitution. It noted that the petitioners had submitted evidence of their age and marital status, which prima facie established their claim for protection.
-
State's Obligation: The Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala, to consider the petitioners' representation and take appropriate steps to ensure their safety. This direction was based on the threat perception alleged by the petitioners.
"The Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala, is directed to consider the representation dated 11.03.2026 (Annexure P-5) qua threat perception and take appropriate steps to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners."
-
Limits of Protection: The Court clarified that its order was not a seal of approval on the legality of the petitioners' marriage. It emphasized that the legality of the marriage would be determined by the concerned Matrimonial Courts. Furthermore, the Court explicitly stated that the petitioners would not be entitled to protection against arrest or continuation of criminal proceedings if they were found to be involved in any cognizable offence(s).
"This order is issued only on the premise that the petitioners have crossed the age of majority as seen from the documents placed on record being their Aadhar Cards as Annexures P-1 and P-2 respectively. This would not ipso facto amount to granting any seal of approval on the legality of their marriage which essentially would come in the domain of the concerned Matrimonial Courts. Further, they would not be entitled for any protection against their arrest or continuance of any criminal proceedings, if otherwise, found to be involved in commission of any cognizable offence(s)."
The Verdict
The Court disposed of the petition with the following directions:
- The Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala, was directed to consider the petitioners' representation and take appropriate steps to ensure their safety.
- The Court clarified that its order did not validate the legality of the petitioners' marriage, which would be determined by the Matrimonial Courts.
- The petitioners would not be entitled to protection against arrest or criminal proceedings if they were involved in any cognizable offence(s).
What This Means For Similar Cases
Protection Under Article 226: Scope and Limits
- The judgment reinforces that adult couples who marry against their families' wishes are entitled to seek protection under Article 226 if they can establish a prima facie threat to their life and liberty.
- Practitioners should note that such protection is not absolute and does not extend to immunity from criminal proceedings.
Evidence of Age and Marital Status
- The Court relied on Aadhar Cards and a Marriage Certificate to establish the petitioners' age and marital status. Practitioners must ensure that similar documentary evidence is submitted to support claims for protection.
Role of Matrimonial Courts
- The Court emphasized that the legality of the marriage would be determined by the Matrimonial Courts. This underscores the limited scope of Article 226 in adjudicating matrimonial disputes, which fall under the jurisdiction of specialized courts.
Criminal Liability Remains Unaffected
- The judgment clarifies that protection under Article 226 does not shield individuals from arrest or criminal proceedings if they are involved in cognizable offences. Practitioners must advise clients that such protection is restricted to threats from private parties and does not extend to state action in criminal cases.
