IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 10692 of 2009 Date of decision: April 21, 2009 Sukhwinder Kaur and another ….. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ….. Respondents Present: Mr. H.S. Tuli, Advocate for the petitioners. *** S.S. SARON, J. The petitioners belong to the same caste and are major. The date of birth of petitioner No.1 as per her matriculation examination certificate (Annexure P1) is 5.12.1981. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that it has wrongly been typed as 5.12.1991 in the typed copy. He has referred to the vernacular copy and also produced the original in which the date of birth of petitioner No.1 is recorded as 5.12.1981. The date of birth of petitioner No.2 as per his matriculation examination certificate is 16.6.1986. Petitioner No.2 is working as a Tower Technician and earning about Rs.7,000/- per month. The petitioners have solemnized their marriage amongst themselves on 4.4.2009 at Gurudwara Shri Nanak Darbar, Kalka Distt. Panchkula. They are now living together as husband and wife. The certificate (Annexure P3) issued by Gurudwara Shri Nanak Darbar, Kalka Distt. Panchkula and the photographs (Annexure P4) of the marriage have been placed on record. The marriage that has been solemnized by the petitioners is against the wishes of the parents (respondents No.4 and 5) of petitioner No.1. The parents (respondents No.4 and 5) of petitioner No.1 and other relatives are not happy with the marriage. Therefore, the petitioners apprehend danger to their life and liberty from Crl. Misc. No. M- 10692 of 2009 [2] them. The local police raided the house of the petitioners in the afternoon on 6.4.2009 as well as on 10.4.2009. However, the petitioners were away from their house. The petitioners have even submitted an application dated 12.4.2009 (Annexure P5) to the Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ludhiana (respondent No.2). However, despite the said application, the threat to the petitioners persists. Therefore, they have approached this Court. 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 happily married with petitioner No.2. 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 April 21, 2009 amit