Punjab & Haryana HC Directs SSP Ludhiana to Act on Protection Plea of Muslim Couple, Girl Aged 17 Years 8 Months

Justice Vikram Aggarwal disposed of a writ petition seeking protection for a Muslim couple, directing the SSP Ludhiana to act on their representation without ruling on the marriage’s validity.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by a Muslim couple seeking protection of life and liberty from the girl’s family members. Justice Vikram Aggarwal, sitting singly, directed the Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), District Ludhiana, to consider the couple’s representation dated 30 August 2026 and take requisite action in accordance with law. The petitioner-husband is 26 years old; the petitioner-wife is 17 years and 8 months old. The court declined to comment on the validity of the marriage but held that the petitioners’ fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 could not be denied merely because they had married against their family’s wishes.

The Dispute Before the Court

Petitioner No. 1, Akbar Khan (date of birth 4 September 1999), and Petitioner No. 2 (date of birth 10 January 2009) are both Muslims. According to the petition, the two had known each other for some time and decided to marry. The father of Petitioner No. 2 opposed the match. On 22 August 2026, Petitioner No. 2 left her parental home and joined Petitioner No. 1, and the two performed a Nikah on the same day according to Muslim rites and rituals.

Respondents No. 4 to 7 — described as family members of Petitioner No. 2 — were stated to be hostile to the marriage. The petitioners submitted a representation dated 30 August 2026 (Annexure P-4) to the Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ludhiana, seeking protection. No action had been taken on that representation by the time the petition was filed. Copies of the Aadhaar cards of both petitioners were placed on record as Annexures P-1 and P-2.

The prayer before the court was twofold: a direction to the official respondents to act on the 30 August 2026 representation, and a direction to the private respondents not to interfere with the petitioners’ life and liberty.

The Legal Question: Muslim Personal Law, Puberty, and the Age of Marriage

Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. D.S. Niggha, argued that both petitioners are governed by Muslim Personal Laws and that under those laws, puberty and majority are treated as equivalent. He submitted that there is a presumption that a Muslim attains majority upon completing 15 years of age, and that Petitioner No. 2, being 17 years and 8 months old, had crossed that threshold.

In support, counsel placed reliance on three coordinate bench decisions: Kammu v. State of Haryana and others, 2010(4) RCR (Civil) 716; Mustufa and another v. State of Haryana and others, CRWP-1100-2026 decided on 30 January 2026; and Zakir Hussain and another v. State of Haryana and others, CRWP-8693-2022 decided on 13 December 2023.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Vikram Aggarwal referred to Article 195 of the Principles of Mohammedan Law by Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mulla (10th Edition, 1933), which defines the capacity for marriage under Mohammedan Law. The provision states that every Muslim of sound mind who has attained puberty may enter into a contract of marriage, and that puberty is presumed, in the absence of evidence, on completion of the age of 15 years.

The court noted the coordinate bench ruling in Kammu’s case, which had held, referring to Article 195, that “a boy or girl who has attained puberty is at liberty to marry any one he or she likes.”

Justice Aggarwal also extracted the reasoning of another coordinate bench in Gulam Deen & Another v. State of Punjab and others, 2022(3) Law Herald 1848. That bench had held that the primary question in such petitions is not the validity of the marriage but the petitioners’ apprehension of danger to their life and liberty, and that Article 21 of the Constitution protects every person from deprivation of life and personal liberty except by procedure established by law. The bench in Gulam Deen had stated: “Merely because the petitioners have got married against the wishes of their family members, they cannot possibly be deprived of the fundamental rights.”

The State counsel, Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG, Punjab, did not dispute the stated facts or the position of law laid down in those judgments.

Justice Aggarwal accepted this line of reasoning. He acknowledged that Petitioner No. 2 is 17 years and 8 months old but held that, being Muslim, she is governed by Muslim Personal Laws under which a person who has attained puberty — presumed at 15 years — is at liberty to marry a person of her choice. The court expressly stated it was not commenting upon the validity of the marriage. Its concern was confined to the petitioners’ safety and the unresolved representation pending before the SSP.

Outcome

The petition was disposed of on 10 September 2026. Justice Vikram Aggarwal directed Respondent No. 2 — the Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), District Ludhiana — to consider the representation dated 30 August 2026 (Annexure P-4) and take requisite action, if so warranted, as per the facts and circumstances of the matter and in accordance with law. No ruling was made on the validity of the Nikah performed on 22 August 2026. The judgment is marked as a speaking/reasoned order and is reportable.