This particular decision is upheld by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana through the division bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi in the case of Gulam Deen and another V State of Punjab and others.
This is a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondent Nos.5 to 7. In the present case, both the petitioners are Muslims. They fell in love some time ago and decided to perform marriage. The date of birth of petitioner No.1 is 14.05.2001 and that of petitioner No.2 is 01.01.2006 as per their Aadhar Cards, which have been annexed with the petition. Both the petitioners have solemnized their marriage on 08.06.2022 as per Muslim rites and ceremonies.
The marriage of a Muslim girl is governed by the Muslim Personal Law. As per Article 195 from the book ‘Principles of Mohammedan Law by Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mulla’, the petitioner No.2 being over 16 years of age was competent to enter into a contract of marriage with a person of her choice. Petitioner No.1 is stated to be more than 21 years of age. Thus, both the petitioners are of marriageable age as envisaged by Muslim Personal Law. In any event, the issue in hand is not with regard to the validity of the marriage but to address the apprehension raised by the petitioners of danger to their life and liberty at the hands of the private respondents and to provide them protection as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides for protection of life and personal liberty and further lays down that no person shall be deprived of his or her life and personal liberty except as per the procedure established by law. The Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that the apprehension of the petitioners needs to be addressed. Merely because the petitioners have got married against the wishes of their family members, they cannot possibly be deprived of the fundamental rights as envisaged in the Constitution of India.
JUDGEMENT VIEWED BY NAISARGIKA MISHRA