Crl. Misc. No.M-37527 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-37527 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.12.2010 Paramjit Kaur and another .. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others. .. Respondents Present:- Mr.Pardeep Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted photostat copy of representation (Annexure P-6). It is submitted that the date mentioned in the representation (Annexure P-6) has inadvertently been written as 11.10.2010 whereas it should have been 19.12.2010 which is on the photocopy that has been submitted today in Court. The same is taken on record. Heard counsel for petitioners. The petitioners are a newly married couple. They have on their own solemnized their marriage amongst themselves on 19.12.2010 at Gurudwara Sri Tibbi Sahib, village Khudda Ali Sher, in the presence of some relatives of petitioner No.2. The marriage that has been solemnized by the petitioners is not to the liking of respondents No.4 to 10. Respondents No.4 to 6 are the brothers of petitioner No.1, respondent No.7 is the mother of petitioner No.1, respondents No.8 and 9 are the uncles of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.10 is the maternal uncle of petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.1 is the only daughter among three sons in the family of her father. The father of petitioner No.1 died some years ago and the uncles (respondents No.8 and 9) who are the father's Crl. Misc. No.M-37527 of 2010 ::2:: elder brother (Taya) and younger brother (Chacha) respectively of the petitioner No.1, were very dominating in the family. They wanted to marry petitioner No.1 to a boy of their choice. In the meantime, the petitioner No.1 came to her sister at Ludhiana, where she met petitioner No.2, who belongs to the same area and caste of petitioner No.1. They became intimate and disclosed their desire to marry each other to their respective families. The parents of petitioner No.2 agreed to this but the family members of petitioner No.1 got annoyed with her and warned her not to do such an act. She again requested her family members that petitioner No.2 was very nice and she cannot live without him whereupon she was given a beating by respondents No.4 to 10. The petitioner No.1 then left her home and went away with petitioner No.2. She then called her family members from Amritsar on 15.02.2010 and told them about her desire to marry petitioner No.2. She was warned and asked to come back otherwise consequences would be bad that she could not imagine. The petitioners, however, solemnized their marriage amongst themselves at Gurudwara Sri Tibbi Sahib, village Khudda Ali Sher, on 19.12.2010. A copy of the marriage certificate (Annexure P-4) and photographs (Annexure P-5) of the ceremony of the marriage have been placed on record. On account of the eminent danger to the life and liberty of the petitioners as well as the family members of petitioner No.2, they submitted a representation (Annexure P- 6) to Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural) Amritsar (respondent No.2). Despite the said representation, the threat to the petitioners, it is submitted, still persists. Both the petitioners, it is submitted, are major. The date of birth of petitioner No.1 is 04.07.1991 and that of petitioner No.2 is 18.02.1989. The petitioner No.1 had run away from her parental home and, therefore, she could not bring any proof relating to her age. However, she Crl. Misc. No.M-37527 of 2010 ::3:: has deposed an affidavit (Annexure P-1) regarding her age. The petitioner No.2 has submitted his Identity Card (Annexure P-2) issued by the Election Commission of India, in which the year of birth of petitioner No.2 is mentioned as 1989. The averments made in the petition are supported by affidavit of Paramjit Kaur (petitioner No.1). Both the petitioners are present in Court and are identified by their counsel. It is stated by the petitioners that they have solemnized their marriage with each other of their own free will and desire and without any kind of pressure or undue influence. It is also stated by the petitioners that they were not earlier married. Besides, they are happy with their marriage. 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 and considered by them independently and in accordance with law. December 22, 2010 (S.S. SARON) sukhpreet JUDGE