IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-4194 of 2010 Date of decision : 11.2.2010 Monika and another …. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others …. Respondents Present: Mr. Harshit Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. **** S.S. SARON, J. The petitioners, it is stated, are major. The date of birth of petitioner No.1 is 25.12.1985. A reference has been made to the birth certificate (Annexure P3 Colly.) and the ration card (Annexure P2 Colly) to contend that the name of petitioner No.1 is though not mentioned in the birth certificate, yet her name is mentioned in the ration card in which it is stated that she is six years old. At present, it is stated that she is 25 years old. Petitioner No.2, it is stated, is 29 years old. A reference has been made to the identity card (Annexure P4) issued by the Election Commission of India in which his age as on 1.1.2006 is recorded as 24 years. The petitioners had a liking for each other. However, this was not to the liking of the parents (respondents No.5 and 6) of petitioner No.1. Even the father’s younger brother (chacha) (respondent No.7) of petitioner No.1 objected to the marriage. Both the petitioners belong to different Crl. Misc. No. M-4194 of 2010 [2] castes and therefore, respondents No.5 to 7 were not agreeable for the marriage and objected to the same. Petitioner No.1 then came to know that she was being married by her father (respondent No.5) against her wishes. Then petitioner No.2 approached the family members of petitioner No.1. However, he was threatened by the family members of petitioner No.1. They stated that if he continued to meet petitioner No.1, they would either kill him or involve him in a criminal case. The petitioners, therefore, on their own solemnized their marriage amongst themselves on 6.2.2010 at Arya Samaj Samiti, Sector 32, Chandigarh according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage certificate (Annexure P1) issued by the Arya Samaj Samiti, Sector-32-C and the photographs (Annexure P2) of the marriage have been placed on record. After the solemnization of the marriage, petitioner No.1 informed her parents (respondents No.5 and 6) about the marriage but they stated that they would not accept this marriage. Respondents No.5 to 7, it is submitted, openly threatened petitioner No.2 to involve him in an abduction case. Therefore, the petitioners apprehend serious threat to their life and liberty. The petitioners have also submitted an application dated 6.2.2010 (Annexure P5) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar (respondent No.2) informing him about their marriage and also seeking their protection. Despite the said application, the threat to the petitioners persists. 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-4194 of 2010 [3] Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No.2 to 4 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 February 11, 2010 amit