Undertaking on marital status, age by petitioners a must: HC

During the hearing of a case , it had come to light that the male petitioner was already married

CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana high court has ordered that in protection matters by runaway couples, the petition be put up before judges only after affidavits are filed from both the petitioners.

The direction has been issued in a matter in which it came to light that the male petitioner had not filed an affidavit and the petition concealed details about his marital status stating that it was first marriage of both the petitioners.

During the hearing, it had come to light that the male petitioner was married. Photos and other documents of the marriage were supplied to the court and marriage certificate too.

It was also stated that the person was involved in a gang-rape case and was facing trial.

Taking note of facts on September 9, the high court bench of justice Arvind Sangwan sought explanation from the registry as to how the petition was passed without there being the affidavits of both the petitioners.

In response, the registry told court that since the affidavit of one of the petitioner was annexed, the case was passed.

The registry had referred to the Criminal Procedure Code stating that there is no provision regarding filing of affidavit.

It also submitted that under the high court rules, this category of cases, there is no requirement of affidavits accompanying a petition.

The bench observed that since a large number of such or similar petitions praying for protection to the life and liberty are filed on the basis of a claim that the marriage performed by the petitioners is against the wishes of their parents or in cases where the parties claim to be in a live-in-relationship or in cases where one of the petitioners is a minor and has not attained the marriageable age as per The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, the lawyers intentionally file the affidavit only of the petitioner, who is legally competent to file the same, in order to avoid deposing the correct description of the marital status as well as the age of another petitioner.

Now, the court has ordered that from November 1, all cases seeking issuance of a direction to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondents, who are the parents or relatives of the petitioners, should be passed only when both have filed their respective affidavits mentioning their date of birth as well as marital status, irrespective of the fact that they are claiming to be in a live-in relationship.

FROM NOVEMBER 1, ALL CASES SEEKING ISSUANCE OF A DIRECTION TO PROTECT LIFE AND LIBERTY OF SUCH PETITIONERS NEEDS AFFIDAVITS FROM BOTH