Punjab and Haryana High Court: Being Below Marriageable Age Would Not Deprive Live-In Couple From Fundamental Right To Protection

The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case X v. State of Punjab and Ors. observed and has made it clear that being below marriageable age would not deprive the live-in couple from fundamental right to protection as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The bench headed by Justice Arun Monga in the case observed and has stated that it is bounden duty of the State, as per the Constitutional obligations casted upon it, to protect the life and liberty of every citizen. Thus, the Right to human life is to be treated on much higher pedestal, regardless of a citizen being minor or a major.
The court stated that mere fact that the petitioners are not of marriageable age in the present case would not deprive them of the fundamental rights as envisaged in Constitution of India who being the citizens of India.
In the present case, the court was hearing the plea filed by a live-in couple wherein the boy was although major but not of marriageable age.
The petitioner in the plea stated that they are purportedly in love with each other and they have been living together in relationship for past couple of days.
Further, it has been submitted before the court that they have decided to get married when boy attained the marriageable age and approached their parents, but parents of the girl were against the marriage of them
It was also alleged before the court that they were living under constant danger as they have every apprehension that their family members will catch them and carry out their threats and may go to the extent of even committing the murder of them.
Therefore, the petitioner stated to be moving around without being able to find a safe place to live due to the absence of protection for their life and liberty.
The court while considering the plea stated that this court have no hesitation to hold that Constitutional Fundamental Right under Article 21 of Constitution of India stands on a much higher pedestal. Therefore, being sacrosanct under the Constitutional Scheme it must be protected, regardless of the solemnization of an invalid or void marriage or even in the absence of any marriage between the parties.
The court also referred to the case Seema Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and other, wherein the court held that this Court in the past and also recently has allowed protection to those runaway couples, even though they were not married and were in a live- in relationship, and in cases where the marriage was invalid, as one of the parties though a major, was not of age as per Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the children of live-in couples have been accorded adequate protection by the Parliament.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed and has directed the SSP, Amritsar to verify the contents of the petition, particularly the threat perception of the petitioners, and thereafter, to provide necessary protection qua their life and liberty, if deemed fit.
Accordingly, the court allowed the plea.
The counsel, Advocate Lakhwinder Singh Lakhanpal appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, Dhruv Dayal, Additional A.G., Punjab.