The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition seeking police protection filed by a minor girl and an adult man who claimed they feared threats from their families over their relationship. Holding that one of the petitioners was admittedly a minor, the Court ruled that such protection could not be granted in the facts of the case. It, however, directed the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
Background of the Case
According to the petition, the two petitioners had known each other for a long time and intended to marry after the girl attained the age of majority. The petition specifically acknowledged that the girl was still a minor, while the second petitioner was an adult. They sought directions for police protection, alleging threats to their life and liberty from private respondents.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the girl's family allegedly wanted her to marry another person. It was claimed that after she refused, she was allegedly assaulted and threatened. The petition further stated that she left her parental home on July 22, 2026, joined the company of the second petitioner, and that both of them later received threats. Based on these allegations, they requested immediate police protection.
Court's Observation
Justice Sumeet Goel examined the legal position governing petitions involving minors. The Court referred extensively to an earlier Division Bench judgment in Yash Pal and Another v. State of Haryana and Others (2024), which held that a minor involved in a live-in relationship cannot seek judicial protection in a manner that would indirectly recognise or endorse such an arrangement.
Quoting the earlier ruling, the bench observed,
“The paramount consideration remains the welfare and well being of the minor in question.”
It further noted that extending protection in such circumstances could amount to implicit approval of a relationship involving a minor, which would be contrary to the statutory framework designed to safeguard children.
The Court found that the petition itself admitted that the first petitioner was born on 11 August 2009 and was around 16 years and 11 months old when the petition was filed. Since she had not attained the age of majority, the Court held that the relief sought could not be granted.
Court's Decision
Dismissing the writ petition, the High Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to police protection in the circumstances presented before it because one of the petitioners was a minor. The Court directed the Commissioner of Police, District Ludhiana, to take necessary steps in accordance with law.
It also instructed the Registry to forward a complete copy of the petition and the order to the Commissioner of Police. Pending applications were disposed of, and no order as to costs was passed.
Case Details
Case Title: Sxxxx and Another v. State of Punjab and Others
Case Number: CRWP-9197-2026
Judge: Justice Sumeet Goel
Decision Date: August 3, 2026
