RASMEENA AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — CRWP/5761/2026

Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010840502026

Filing Number

CRWP/39483/2026

Filing Date

15-May-2026

Registration No

CRWP/5761/2026

Registration Date

15-May-2026

Judge

Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu

Coram

Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu

Category

47.5 - PROTECTION ( 195 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RASMEENA AND ANOTHER

    Adv. NAFEES AHMAD KHAN

  2. 2.RASMEENA

  3. 3.AASIF

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

  2. 2.RASMEENA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Ms. Justice Mandeep PannuView PDF

    Case Summary: CRWP/5761/2026 The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted protection to two major adults living in a consensual live-in relationship against threats from their family members. Justice Mandeep Pannu held that fundamental rights to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution apply equally to couples in live-in relationships as to married couples, and are not contingent on formal marriage solemnization. The court directed the Superintendent of Police, Nuh to assess the threat perception from the petitioners' representation and provide appropriate protective measures, while clarifying the order does not validate the relationship's legality or shield them from criminal prosecution if involved in cognizable offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRWP/5761/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRWP/5761/2026 The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted protection to two major adults living in a consensual live-in relationship against threats from their family members. Justice Mandeep Pannu held that fundamental rights to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution apply equally to couples in live-in relationships as to married couples, and are not contingent on formal marriage solemnization. The court directed the Superintendent of Police, Nuh to assess the threat perception from the petitioners' representation and provide appropriate protective measures, while clarifying the order does not validate the relationship's legality or shield them from criminal prosecution if involved in cognizable offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case