Void Marriage Cannot Confer Legal Status: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Injunction Against Woman Claiming Wife’s Status in Bigamy Dispute Mere Presence or Relationship Is Not Enough—Prosecution Must Prove Participation and Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Allahabad High Court Evidence of Injured Eye-Witnesses Must Be of Sterling Quality — Not of a Doubtful and Tainted Nature: Bombay High Court Acquits Five Life Convicts in Murder Case Refund of Provisional Pilferage Amount Is Lawful If Theft Not Proved: Calcutta High Court Upholds Acquittal in Electricity Theft Case Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Cannot Be Rejected by Conducting Mini-Trial on Disputed Facts: Delhi High Court Section 17 PWDV Act | Senior Citizen’s Peace Trumps Daughter-in-Law’s Residence Right Where Alternative Accommodation Provided: Delhi High Court Access Must Meet Agricultural Necessities, Not Mere Pedestrian Use: Karnataka High Court Modifies Easement Width from 3 to 6 Feet Section 302 IPC | Suspicion Cannot Substitute Proof: Kerala High Court Acquits Man in Septic Tank Murder Case Domestic Violence Allegations Can’t Always Be Painted as Attempt to Murder: Meghalaya High Court Invokes Section 482 CrPC to Quash Matrimonial Assault Case Post-Settlement Landlord Is Best Judge Of His Need; Son’s Residence In Delhi No Ground To Deny Eviction For Hotel Project: Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Eviction Tribunal Has Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Grant-In-Aid Related Disputes: Orissa High Court Rejects Writ Appeal in Lecturer Promotion Case Educational Institutions Have No Lien Over Students' Future: Rajasthan High Court Slams Withholding of Certificates for Fee Recovery Mere Allegation of Forged Revenue Entries Not Enough to Disturb Settled Possession: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Plea for Injunction Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court

Protection of Life and Liberty Paramount; Temporary Police Protection Granted Rules Punjab and Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a pivotal ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, underscored the importance of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court issued orders for temporary police protection to a newly married couple who alleged threats from their families for marrying against their wishes.

The petitioners, Tamanna Parmar and her spouse, approached the High Court seeking protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. They claimed that their fundamental rights to life and personal liberty were threatened by their own family members, due to their marriage, which was disapproved.

Tamanna and her partner’s plea highlighted their precarious situation, fearing harm from private respondents—essentially, their relatives. The issue revolved around the fundamental right to life and personal safety, necessitating judicial intervention for safeguarding these constitutional guarantees.

Immediate Protection: Justice Chitkara ordered the concerned Superintendent of Police and other designated officers to provide appropriate protection to the petitioners for a week, extendable based on real-time assessments or at the petitioners’ request. “In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is imperative to ensure the safety of the petitioners without any delay,” observed Justice Chitkara.

Conditions of Protection: The court mandated that during the period of protection, the petitioners should avoid engaging in high-risk activities. The law enforcement officers were tasked to assess and provide the necessary level of security proactively.

Family Reconciliation Efforts: Acknowledging the natural familial bonds, the court facilitated a controlled meeting between Tamanna and her family under strict supervision. “Such meetings are critical to preserving family relationships, even in contentious circumstances,” the judge noted.

Use of Court Orders: Significantly, the court allowed its orders to be downloaded directly from the official website for swift implementation, emphasizing the need for immediate compliance without bureaucratic delays.

Decision The petition was allowed to the extent of granting temporary protection and arranging supervised family meetings. The order is designed to balance the urgent need for security with ongoing efforts at family reconciliation.

Date of Decision: May 1, 2024

Tamanna Parmar and another vs. State of Punjab and others

Latest Legal News