MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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