Latest News
Back
Document:
Priyapreet Kaur and Another v. State of Punjab and others
INTRODUCTION:-
In the present case of the Priyapreet Kaun and Anr. v. State of Punjab and ors. before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the court held that parents have no say over the decision of their major girl, it's her life to decide whom she wants to live with or marry. Also, it was held that merely because the boy (major) is not of marriageable age doesn't mean that the right of life and liberty of a major couple living in a live -in- relationship can be denied.
FACTS OF THE CASE:-
The present judgement in the criminal writ petition came out of the circumstances that the girl (petitioner no. 1) was of 19 years of age and the boy (petitioner no. 2) was of 20 years of age knew each other since over a year and were interested to marry each other in future. After their relationship came to the knowledge of the parents of the girl, the fight took place between the families of the boy and girl. The girl was severely beaten by the parents and tried to fix her marriage alliance against her wish. She was confined in a room, her phone was snatched and threatened her to end her relationship. The girl escaped from her parent's house to reside with the petitioner no. 2. As the boy was not of marriageable age the were in a live-in relationship. However the family members of the girls, the respondent no. 4 and respondent no. 6 were continuously threatening them. In regards to which the petitioners had submitted a representation before SSP of district Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab (respondent no. 2) however no action was taken thereon. The petitioners filed a criminal writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking protection from the respondent no. 4 and 6.
OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT:-
The court observed that both the petitioners being major are the sole rightful owner of their lives. The parents have no right to dictate the lives of their children. The girl being an adult has the right to decide the way of life she wishes to pursue. Both the girl and the boy are major, they have the right to decide about their lives and they are free to be in a live -in- relationship. The society has no right to interfere with their decision, not even the parents can do so. The constitution guarantees them the right to life and choice of the life partner forms a major part of one's life. The court referred to a decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K. M. where the Apex Court had held that the right to marry a person of choice is an integral part of the right to life. The right to life cannot be taken away unless through a just, fair and reasonable law. The right to liberty as guaranteed by the constitution implies that the ability of an individual to freely decide upon matters central to the pursuits of happiness. The constitution protects one's ability to pursue a way of life or faith, decide upon the matters of dress, food, love and partnership as to which are central aspects of identity. Society has no role to play in deciding upon the choice of a life partner. The court said that the petitioners are seeking protection for their right to life and liberty as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The constitution lays down that no one shall be denied of the right to life unless by the procedure established by law. Though the petitioner no. 2 is not of marriageable age still he is a major. Merely because the petitioner no. 2 is not of marriageable age, the petitioners cannot be denied the enforcement of the right to life. Both the petitioners are major, have decided to live in a live -in- relationship, respondents have legally justified objection to the same.
JUDGEMENT:-
The court directed the SSP, Fatehpur Sahib, Punjab to decide upon the representation submitted by the petitioners and take necessary required actions as per the law. Whiling disposing of the matter the court made clear that the order shall neither be treated as an expression of veracity over the contents of the petition nor as a stamp over the alleged live -in- relationship of the petitioners and the order merely concerns the grant of enforcement of their Right to life and liberty as to which the petition concerns over, protection.
Document:
