Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court Election Petition Must Be Presented By Petitioner In Person, Non-Compliance Renders It Liable To Summary Dismissal: Supreme Court Absence Of Recovery Or Evidence Of Stolen Property Precludes Conviction Under Section 394 IPC: Supreme Court

Minor’s Right to Choose: High Court Orders Protection for Girl Refusing Arranged Marriage

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Justice Manisha Batra directs police and Child Welfare Committee to ensure the safety and rights of Harmanpreet Kaur against family threats.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has issued a significant judgment under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ensuring the protection of a minor girl, Harmanpreet Kaur, who faced threats from her family after refusing an arranged marriage. Justice Manisha Batra’s decision mandates police intervention and Child Welfare Committee oversight to safeguard the minor’s life and liberty.

Harmanpreet Kaur, represented by family friends, sought the court’s intervention under Article 226, following threats and physical violence from her family after she refused to marry an elderly man. Evicted from her home, she sought refuge with family friends. Despite her representation to the police on June 11, 2024, no action was taken, prompting her to approach the High Court.

Justice Batra highlighted the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee the protection of life and liberty. The court noted the urgent need to safeguard Harmanpreet from coercion and physical harm due to her refusal of an arranged marriage.

The judgment emphasized the critical role of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The court directed that Harmanpreet be produced before the CWC to ensure her safety and well-being. “The court, in its capacity as parens patriae, must act in the best interest of the minor,” Justice Batra stated.

Justice Batra reiterated the importance of considering the minor’s representation to the police, underscoring that the threat to her life and liberty should not be ignored. The court cited similar cases where minors sought protection from familial threats after exercising their freedom of choice in matters of marriage.

The judgment reinforced the legal obligation of the state to protect individuals, especially minors, from threats to their life and liberty. The court drew parallels with previous cases, emphasizing that the police must act on credible threats and provide necessary protection.

Justice Manisha Batra remarked, “No person can be permitted or allowed to take law into their hands, and therefore, keeping in view the said aspect, the protection must be provided as permissible in law.” She further noted, “The court must ensure that the minor’s rights are safeguarded in compliance with the Juvenile Justice Act.”

The High Court’s decision mandates the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, to assess the threat perception and provide protection if necessary. The Child Welfare Committee is instructed to ensure the minor’s safety and submit a compliance report within two months. This landmark judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting minors’ rights and upholding their autonomy against coercive practices.

 

Date of Decision: 3rd July, 2024

Harmanpreet Kaur through Swarn Kaur and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab and Others

Latest Legal News