Judgment:
Crl.
Misc.
not M- 8290 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.
Misc.
not M- 8290 of 2013(O&M) Date of decision :
18. 03.2013 Archana Singh and another ......Petitioners versus Union Territory,Chandigarh and ors...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1
Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?.”
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.”
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Present: Mr.Vinot Kumar Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioneRs.-- VIJENDER SINGH MALIK , J Archana Singh and Zamin Zaidi alias Sahil Singh, the petitioners seek direction to respondents no.2 and 3 not to harass them and the parents of petitioner no.2 at the instance of respondents No.4 and 5 as they have married against the wishes of the private respondents and other relatives of petitioner no.1 with the further prayer to direct respondent no.2 to protect their life and liberty.
Annexure P-3 is the affidavit of petitioner no.2 where in para no.3 he mentions that he is Muslim by religion and not he wants to change his religion from Muslim to Hindu.
This statement on the part of petitioner no.2 would clearly show that he is still a Muslim and Crl.
Misc.
not M- 8290 of 2013 -2- he wanted to change his religion from Muslim to Hindu.
This is an affidavit of 04th March 2013 .
There is Annexure P-4 a copy from a newspaper report where petitioner no.2 declared that he had changed his religion from Muslim to Hindu and on 07th he allegedly tied a nuptial knot with petitioner no.1.
He has not made it clear as to how and by what procedure he has changed his religion from Muslim to Hindu.
Mere making a declaration in a newspaper would not convert petitioner no.2 to Hinduism.
It clearly shows that petitioner no.2 is still a Muslim and he could not have a Hindu marriage with petitioner no.1.
It is claimed that the petitioners informed the parents of the girl of their marriage and respondent no.4 threatened the petitioners to be killed as they were to bring bad name to the family of petitioner no.1.
The petitioners are already stated to have made a representation to Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh for protecting their life and liberty.
Despite the fact that they are not shown on the record to have validly been married, yet even if there is some apprehension of danger to their life and liberty, then Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh is required to take the said apprehension in consideration and to provide them protection for their life and liberty.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
18.03.2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE