Punjab and Haryana High Court: A writ petition was filed seeking the relief of protection of life and liberty at the hands of family members after the petitioners got married against their will. Considering the competency of the petitioners to enter into a valid contract of marriage and addressing the apprehension raised by them, Jasjit Singh Bedi, J, directed the Senior Superintendent of Police to decide the representation of the petitioners regarding danger to their life and liberty.
In the present case, both the petitioners were Muslims. They fell in love and decided to get married. The boy was 21 years of age while the girl was of 16 years as per their Aadhaar Cards. Both the petitioners solemnized their marriage on 08.06.2022 as per Muslim rites and ceremonies.
The counsel for the petitioners while placing reliance on Kammu v. State of Haryana[1], Yunus Khan v. State of Haryana[2] and Mohd Samim v State of Haryana[3]submitted that under Muslim law, puberty and majority are one and there is a presumption of majority at the age of 15 years and a Muslim boy or a Muslim girl who has attained puberty is at liberty to marry one he or she likes and the guardian has no right to interfere. The petitioners, however, limited their prayer to the issuance of direction for deciding the representation made to the superintendent of police for protection of their life and liberty which was not acted upon by him earlier. The counsel for respondents 1 to 4 accepted the notice of motion.
Placing reliance on the case of Yunus Khan (supra) and Article195 from the book ‘principles of Mohammedan Law by Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mulla’ as was reproduced in the said case, the Court noted that the marriage of a Muslim girl is governed by the personal law of Muslims, which proposition has been made clear in the above mentioned various judgments. The Court addressed the issue of providing protection to the petitioners as envisaged under Article 21 and held that-
“…merely because the petitioners have got married against the wishes of their family members, they cannot possibly be deprived of the fundamental rights as envisaged in the Constitution of India.” and disposed off the petition directing the senior superintendent of the police to decide the representation made by the petitioners.
[Gulam Deen v. State of Punjab, 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 1485, decided on 13.06.2022]
Appearnces:
For Petitioner: Advocate Sanjeev Kumar
For State: AAG Bhupender Beniwal
[1] 2010(4) RCR(Civil) 716]
[2] 2014(3) RCR(Criminal) 518]
[3] 2019(1) 1 RCR (Criminal) 685
