Runaway Couple | Protection Of Life Paramount, Irrespective Of Alleged Misrepresentation Of Girl's Age: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that the protection of life and personal liberty is paramount, regardless of disputes over the age of the individuals involved.

The observation was made while dismissing a plea seeking action against the runaway couple for allegedly falsely stating in the protection plea that the girl was a major at the time of marriage.

Adding that protection is a fundamental right, the Court said, "Even if the petitioner had claimed some misrepresentation, still, the relief sought was so paramount, so foundational, and so sacrosanct that this Court does not deem it appropriate to proceed against such a person simply because he might have used some forged document for the marriage, which was not under challenge before this Court."

The Court further said that self-preservation is the most fundamental human instinct. People go to great lengths to save their own lives and those of their families, friends, associates, and even strangers. Safeguarding life is at the core of India's Constitution, and if such protection is denied, the foundation could collapse, and the core would implode.

Plea was filed by one Ram Vinesh, seeking initiation of action under 340 CrPC against respondent his daughter for filing false affidavit and forged documents in a 2017 protection plea.

The petitioner's daughter had left the house with a boy and solemnised marriage. It was alleged that due to opposition to the marriage by some relatives, they became apprehensive about potential threats and filed a protection petition with the Court.

It was submitted that in the protection petition, the documents were annexed to demonstrate that the girl had attained majority and was competent to marry on her own will; whereas at the time of marriage the girl was minor, as such, while getting the relief, the daughter's husband had not approached the Court with clean hands and had shown minor as a major and had got relief.

Perusing the protection plea, the Court said that, "'A' at that time was a minor and a copy of the Aadhar Card appears to have been filed at the time of seeking protection; however, in case marriage was solemnized by showing a minor as a major, such marriage may be voidable under law."

If the version of the petitioner is correct, in that case, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to launch a complaint under the IPC, which he did not avail, and the petitioner wants the Court to proceed against respondent, it added.

Further, the Court highlighted that it cannot be ruled out that at the time of preparation of the Aadhar card, whether the actual date of birth was shown or not.

"It is a matter of inquiry and investigation, which could have been better conducted in the event of a violation of any offense under the IPC or POCSO," the judge said.

Incorrect Legal Advice Leading Couples To File Protection Pleas

The Court said that, there was no reason for the petitioners (couple) to approach the Court unless there was some apprehension or threat to their lives.

"Needless to say, such concern could have been mistaken, false, or merely speculative; however, the instinct to protect someone's life is so strong that individuals would avoid taking any risk," it added.

Furthermore, the Court pointed out that it cannot be ruled out that incorrect legal advice is often given to runaway couples and individuals like these, which is a very real possibility given the large number of such petitions filed, not only in this court but also before the district courts.

Mr. B.S. Kathuria, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, D.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Bhisham Kinger, Advocate for respondent No.4.

Title: Ram Vinesh Saw v. State of Punjab and others