The Punjab and Haryana High Court has shattered Palwinder Kaur's dream of marrying Britain's Prince Harry -- who by all accounts is doing fine with Meghan Markle.
Palwinder Kaur, an advocate, appeared in person to fight the case, seeking legal action, including an arrest warrant, against Harry for “not fulfilling a promise” to marry her.
The court of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan was sympathetic to her, but dismissed the plea on April 8.
“After hearing the petitioner in person, I find that this petition is nothing but just a day-dreamer's fantasy about marrying Prince Harry,” the judge said.
And breaking some bad news, he said the so-called Prince Harry may be someone sitting at a cybercafé in a Punjab village. The alleged promise to marry her was made through email.
The petitioner had got a little mixed up with the names, tagging part of Harry's sister-in-law Kate Middleton's name to his.
She sought action against “Prince Harry Middleton, son of Prince Charles Middleton, resident of the UK.”
The petitioner wanted the court to direct the UK police to take action against Harry. She sought arrest warrants against him to prevent any further delay in their “marriage”.
The single-judge bench was unmoved.
“This petition, though very poorly drafted, both grammatically and lacking the knowledge of pleadings, speaks about some emails between the petitioner and Prince Harry, in which the person, sending the email, has stated that he promises to marry soon,” the judge wrote.
The court asked the petitioner if she had ever travelled to the United Kingdom. She hadn't.
She said the conversation was through social media and she even sent messages to Prince Charles that his son is engaged to her.
“It is well-known fact that fake IDs are created on various social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, etc, and authenticity of such conversation cannot be relied upon by this Court,” the judge said.
"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,” he added.
“This court finds no ground to entertain this petition and can only show its sympathy for the petitioner that she has believed such fake conversation to be true. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.”
