The Punjab and Haryana High Court has emphasized that the protection of life and personal liberty is of utmost importance, even if there are disputes regarding the age of individuals involved. The court made this observation while dismissing a plea seeking action against a runaway couple for allegedly misrepresenting the girl’s age in their protection petition.
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."
The plea was filed by Ram Vinesh, who sought action under Section 340 of the CrPC against his daughter and her husband for submitting a false affidavit and forged documents in a 2017 protection plea. The petitioner’s daughter had left home with a boy and married him. Due to opposition from relatives, the couple feared threats and approached the court for protection.
The petitioner argued that the girl was a minor at the time of marriage, but the couple presented documents, including an Aadhar card, to show she was a major. The Court noted that if the marriage was solemnized by misrepresenting age, it could be voidable under the law. However, the appropriate remedy in such cases is filing a complaint under the IPC, which the petitioner did not pursue.
Read also:- Parole Pleas Must Be Resolved Within 4 Months: Punjab & Haryana High Court Warns Jail Authorities
The Court also highlighted that it could not be confirmed whether the Aadhar card had the correct birthdate, stating,
"It is a matter of inquiry and investigation, which could have been better conducted in the event of a violation of any offense under the IPC or POCSO."
Read also:- Eviction on New Grounds Valid Even After Earlier Dismissal: Rajasthan High Court
Additionally, the Court observed that runaway couples often file protection pleas due to genuine fear for their lives, even if the threat is perceived or speculative. It also pointed out that incorrect legal advice may contribute to such petitions being filed frequently.
The case was represented by:
- Mr. B.S. Kathuria, Advocate for the petitioner.
- Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, D.A.G., Punjab.
- Mr. Bhisham Kinger, Advocate for respondent No.4.
Case Title: Ram Vinesh Saw v. State of Punjab and others