HC reaffirms primacy of life & liberty in case of runaway couple accused of misrepresenting girl's age

The Print

8 hours ago

The petitioner had alleged that respondent No. 4, in seeking protection after claiming to have married the petitioner's minor daughter, misrepresented her age as a major.
The court dismissed a petition seeking action under Section 340 CrPC (giving false and fabricated evidence) against an individual accused of filing a false affidavit and forged documents in a 2017 protection petition.
Gurugram: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed the primacy of life and personal liberty as fundamental rights, dismissing a plea seeking action against a runaway couple accused of misrepresenting the girl's age in a protection plea.
The decision, delivered by Justice Anoop Chitkara on 1 July, highlights the judiciary's stance on the sanctity of life and personal liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, even when allegations of misrepresentation are involved.
The case saw the petitioner, the girl's father, seeking action under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) against respondent No. 4, who married his daughter and approached the court for protection in the 2017 petition.
The petitioner alleged that the respondent had filed a false affidavit and forged documents in his 2017 protection petition, claiming to have married 'A' (the petitioner's daughter) as a major, when she was, in fact, a minor at the time of the wedding.
The protection petition had been filed by the couple, apprehending threats due to familial opposition to their union.
During the proceedings, it emerged that an Aadhaar card had been submitted in the protection plea to demonstrate 'A' had attained majority.
While acknowledging the petitioner's grievance regarding the alleged misrepresentation of age, the High Court observed that the core of the original protection petition was the apprehension of a threat to the lives of respondent No. 4 and 'A'.
Justice Chitkara's order meticulously pointed out that the actual date of birth of 'A' was a matter of evidence, and that in many cases, especially those involving births outside hospitals, accurate record-keeping of birth dates can be challenging.
The court also considered the possibility of incorrect legal advice often given to runaway couples, leading to such petitions.
Crucially, the judgment emphasised that respondent No. 4 had sought protection for his life, a right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Court stated, 'Even if the petitioner had claimed some misrepresentation, still, the relief sought was so paramount, so foundational, and so sacrosanct that this Court does not deem it appropriate to proceed against such a person simply because he might have used some forged document for the marriage, which was not under challenge before this Court.'
Underscoring the human instinct for self-preservation, Justice Chitkara remarked, 'Self-preservation is the most fundamental human instinct. People go to great lengths to save their own lives and those of their families, friends, associates, and even strangers. Safeguarding life is at the core of India's Constitution, and if such protection is denied, the foundation could collapse, and the core would implode.'
Given the sacrosanct nature of the relief sought in the protection petition—to save a life—the High Court concluded that it was not appropriate to interfere and initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC.
The petition was consequently dismissed, with all pending applications disposed of. The ruling reinforces the judiciary's commitment to upholding fundamental rights, particularly the right to life, as a cornerstone of the constitutional framework.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: Allahabad HC's pattern of denying protection to interfaith, live-in couples—a look at cases & the law