Himachal Pradesh High Court Allows Writ Petition for Protection of Life and Liberty After Marriage

Must Read

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Follow us

In the present case, the petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Petition was in response to a breach in their right to life and liberty under Article 21. The plea sought their safety after they married against their parent’s wishes.

Brief Facts of the Case 

The Petitioners wished to get married to each other. The parents of both Respondents did not agree. The parents considered the marriage to be against their norms as it was based on inter-caste relations. Due to the aforesaid situation, the petitioners married each other. The marriage was performed against their parents’ will. The Petitioners are fearful of their lives. They have the apprehension that there may be a threat to their safety.

The Petitioners speculate that their parents might try to annihilate their union. They claimed that the Respondents might perform acts that may hinder their liberty. The Respondents also pose to be a threat to their lives.

To protect their lives and personal liberty, the Petitioners approached the Court. They have invoked Article 21( Right to life)  of the Constitution of India. The Petitioners have pled for the protection of their fundamental right. To this end, they have filed the present writ petition under Article 226.  Through this petition, the Petitioners seek protection by the Court against their parents.

Arguments before the Court

The Petitioners argued that their parents are a threat to their marriage. Also, they claimed that they feel a threat to their lives and personal liberty.  Thus, they pled for necessary directions to safeguard the same.

Observations of the Court

The Court has observed that the prayers of the petitioners are legitimate. Thus, the fundamental right of the petitioners needs immediate attention and necessary directions.

Further, the petitioners need protection from the police. It is to safeguard them from harassment by the Respondents. The Court followed the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of UP (2006) 5 SCC 475 and allowed the petition.

Judgment

Based on the facts and situation, the Court deemed protection to be necessary.  Thus, the Court ordered for police protection to safeguard their fundamental rights. The Court ordered the police to assure that Petitioners’ life and personal liberty does not incur any harm.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -