Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court Financial Institutions Cannot Use 'Goonda-ism' For Repossession: Supreme Court Mandates Compensation For Violation Of Article 21 Motor Vehicles Act: Claimant Cannot Invoke Jurisdiction Of A Forum Where Neither Accident Occurred Nor Defendant Resides: Supreme Court Article 226 | Writ Court Cannot Decide Title Disputes Or Protect Possession If Factual Matrix Is Disputed: Supreme Court Suppression Of Material Facts In Writ Petition Under Article 32 Renders Challenge Non-Maintainable: 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