IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-29035 of 2010 Date of decision : 30.9.2010 Ritu and another …. Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ….. Respondents Present : Mr. S.K. Tandon, Advocate for the petitioners. *** S.S. SARON, J. The petitioners on their own have solemnized their marriage amongst themselves on 27.9.2010. The marriage was solemnized at Arya Samaj Mandir, Baltana (Zirakpur), District SAS Nagar. The marriage certificate (Annexure P3) issued by the Purohit (Priest) of the aforesaid Mandir and the photographs (Annexure P4) of the marriage have been placed on record. On account of the marriage that has been solemnized by the petitioners, they apprehend danger to their life and liberty from respondents No.4 to 6 who it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners are the mother, paternal uncle (chacha) and maternal uncle (mama) respectively of petitioner No.1. On account of the threats held out by respondents No.4 to 6, the petitioners submitted an application dated 27.9.2010 (Annexure P5) to the Superintendent of Police, Jind (respondent No.2) seeking protection of their life. Despite the said representation, the threat to them persists. Therefore, they have filed the present petition. It is submitted that both the petitioners are major. The date of birth of petitioner No.1 as per her Secondary School Examination Certificate (Annexure P1) issued by the Board of School Education, Haryana is 26.8.1992 and that of petitioner No.2 as per his matriculation Crl. Misc. No. M-29035 of 2010 [2] certificate (Annexure P2) issued by the aforesaid Board is 10.4.1986. The averments as made in the petition are supported by affidavit of Ritu (petitioner No.1). Both the petitioners are present in Court and are identified by their counsel. It is stated by petitioner No.1 that she has solemnized her marriage with petitioner No.2 of her own free will and desire and without any kind of pressure or undue influence. She is happy with her marriage. It is also stated by the petitioners that they were not earlier married. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 that in case the petitioners approach any of them setting out their grievances as have been made in the present petition, the same would be looked into by them independently and in accordance with law. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE September 30, 2010 amit