Crl. Misc.No.M-18561 of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc.No.M 18561 OF 2010 Date of Decision:-09 th JULY, 2010 Amrit Kaur @ Habiba & Habib Shah. .........Petitioners. Vs State of Haryana & Ors. .........Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. Balkar Singh, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Yash Pal Mallik, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for Respondent-State. Mr.JS Maanipur,Advocate for respondents 4 and 5. JASWANT SINGH, J (Oral). Amrit Kaur, petitioner no.1 claims that she has changed her religion from Sikhism to Islam and acquired the name of Habiba and of her own will contracted marriage on 30.6.2010 with petitioner no.2 Habib Shah son of Peer Shah, resident of H.No.12, Village Leda Khadar, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar. They both claiming themselves to be major and apprehending threat to their life and liberty on account of perceived inter-religion marriage, at the Crl. Misc.No.M-18561 of 2010 #2# hands of parents of petitioner no.1, approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC, for protection. Parents of petitioner no.1 are impleaded as respondents 4 and 5 and are residents of the same village where petitioner no.2-husband is residing. Translated extract of Nikahnama (marriage certificate) is annexed as Annexure P3, whereas in support of the factum of her change of religion only affidavit dated 29.6.2010 (Annexure P1) has been appended. Notice of motion to official respondent nos.1 to 3 was issued for 5.7.2010 on which date learned State counsel informed the Court that petitioner no.1 had not attained the age of majority as her date of birth in the Middle Examination Certificate is recorded as 22.9.1992 and not 27.9.1991 as averred in the petition. He further informed that FIR No. 188 dated 2.7.2010 under Sections 363/366-A and 120-B IPC has been registered at PS Pehowa on the complaint filed by brother of petitioner no.1-wife. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions from petitioner no.1 asserted that her correct date of birth is 27.9.1991 and the same is recorded in her Matriculation certificate, which was in the possession of her parents. Thereupon, learned State counsel had prayed for sometime to produce the said Matriculation certificate. Notice was also issued to respondents 4 and 5 for today i.e. 9.7.2010. At the time of hearing today learned State counsel has produced the Matriculation certificate of petitioner no.1 which reveals that her date of birth is 27.9.1991. Thus, on the date of marriage i.e. 30.6.2010 she had not attained the age of majority under the Indian Crl. Misc.No.M-18561 of 2010 #3# Majority Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that petitioner no.1 has converted to Islam and is now a Muslim and under the Mohammedan law even if she is under the age of 18 years but has attained the age of puberty, her marriage without the consent of her parents cannot be termed to be illegal under the Mohammedan Law. In support he relied upon Ruksana and another v. Govt.of NCT of Delhi and others, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 542. In the opinion of this Court, it is yet to be ascertained by the investigating agency as to whether petitioner no.1 has validly converted to Islam and thereafter validly entered into contract marriage as no material before this Court is available to hold so. Even otherwise, this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is neither equipped nor empowered to do so. Be that as it may, this Court interacted with respondent nos. 4 and 5 and impressed upon them to accept the marriage in view of wish, determination and commitment of petitioner no.1 to sustain her marriage with petitioner no.2. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 then reluctantly assured that they would not cause any harm to the life and liberty of petitioners, however, any action already taken shall proceed in accordance with law. In view of the fact that parents of the wife appear to have seen reason, no further direction is required to be issued. However, it is clarified that as and when the petitioners approach/make an application to SP Yamuna Nagar with regard to threat to their life and liberty at the Crl. Misc.No.M-18561 of 2010 #4# hands of family of the wife due to their marriage, the same shall be looked into by SP Yamuna Nagar, and who shall take appropriate action in accordance with law, if the situation so warrants. The investigating agency is, however, at liberty to proceed in case FIR No.188 dated 2.7.2010 under Sections 363/366-A and 120-B IPC, PS Pehowa in accordance with law. Disposed of in the above terms. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE 09th July, 2010 Vinay/joshi