Dreams to marry ‘Prince Harry’ shatter as Punjab and Haryana High Court junks woman advocate’s plea

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, April 12

Prince Charles would not like it, and Prince Harry would be appalled. But for the petitioner, it could not have been worse. Her dreams of marrying into royalty have been shattered with the Punjab and Haryana High Court terming her petition — alleging promises by Prince Harry to marry her — as “a day-dreamer’s fantasy”.

“There is every possibility that so-called Prince Harry may be sitting in a cyber cafe of a village in Punjab, looking for greener pastures for himself,” Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan asserted.

The matter was placed before Justice Sangwan after advocate Palwinder Kaur moved the High Court with “Prince Harry Middleton” as a respondent. Seeking legal action against “Prince Harry Middleton, son of Prince Charles Middleton, resident of United Kingdom”, Palwinder also prayed for issuance of directions to the “UK police cell” to act against him.

Directions were also sought for issuance of arrest warrants against him to prevent further delay “in their marriage”. She claimed that Prince Harry had given his word to marry her, but the promise remained unfulfilled.

The matter was initially heard on a virtual platform. But the case was specially taken up for physical hearing on a request made by the petitioner in person. After hearing her, Justice Sangwan asserted: “I find that this petition is nothing, but just a day-dreamer’s fantasy about marrying Prince Harry.”

Justice Sangwan added the petition was “very poorly drafted” grammatically and “lacked the knowledge of pleadings”. But it spoke about some emails between the petitioner and Prince Harry, in which the sender made a promise to marry soon.

Responding to a court query on petitioner ever travelling to the UK, she replied in negative. Claiming conversation through social media, the petitioner said she had even sent messages to Prince Charles that his son Prince Harry was engaged with her.

Referring to the documents, Justice Sangwan asserted the printouts of the “so-called conversation” were not true copies and some portion had been deleted/erased. “It is a well-known fact that fake IDs are created on various social media sites like the Facebook, Twitter, etc, and authenticity of such conversation cannot be relied upon by this court.”

Before parting with the case, Justice Sangwan asserted the court did not find ground to entertain the petition and could only show its sympathy towards the petitioner that she believed such a fake conversation to be true.