In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-15693 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:25.5.2010 Amita Kathait and another .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The petitioners are a newly married couple. They have filed the present petition for directing respondents No.1 to 3 to provide adequate Police protection/security and to further direct respondent No.3 not to harass them or threaten them at the behest of respondents No.4 to 6, who are the parents and brother respectively of petitioner No.1. The petitioners had known to each other and had a liking for each other. They decided to solemnize their marriage amongst themselves. Petitioner No.2 approached the parents (respondents No.4 and 5) of petitioner No1. However, respondents No.4 to 6 straightway refused. The parents (respondents No.4 and 5) of petitioner No.1 stated that they would not permit the solemnization of an inter-caste marriage. Therefore, being quite adamant the petitioners on their own solemnized their marriage amongst themselves on 21.5.2010 at Prachin Shiv Mandir, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh. The marriage was solemnized in accordance with Hindu rites at the above said place. The photographs (Annexure-P.1) of the marriage Cr. Misc. No.M-15693 of 2010 [2] and the certificate of marriage (Annexure-P.2) issued by Pt. Narata Ram Moudgil, Prachin Shiv Mandir, Sector 19-A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh have been placed on record. It is stated that both the petitioners are major. The date of birth of petitioner No.1 as per her Matriculation certificate (Annexure-P.3) issued by the Punjab School Education Board is 21.9.1988. The date of birth of petitioner No.2 as per the transfer certificate (Annexure- P.4) issued by S.R. Arya Senior Secondary School, Patiala is 1.6.1979. It is submitted that in fact the family members (respondents No.4 to 6) of petitioner No.1 were aware of the relationship of the petitioners. However, with a view to harass and humiliate the family members of petitioner No.2 and in order to pressurize them, respondents No.4 to 6 planned a criminal conspiracy in connivance with the local Police and raided the house of petitioner No.2 on 2.5.2010 and had threatened him with dire consequences in case ever he thought of marrying petitioner No.1. It is submitted that petitioner No.2 is a divorcee and his first marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 18.8.2007 passed by the learned District Judge (Ad hoc), Patiala. The marriage has now been solemnized by the petitioners with their own free will. However, on account of annoyance of respondents No.4 to 6 the petitioners apprehend danger to their life and liberty. On 21.5.2010 and thereafter on 22.5.2010 the local Police raided the house of the petitioners in order to arrest them but the petitioners were not at home. The Police while going back have openly threatened that the family members of petitioner No.2 would have to face dire consequences. The petitioners have filed various complaints regarding harassment. The complaint dated 22.5.2010 (Annexure-P.5) addressed to Cr. Misc. No.M-15693 of 2010 [3] SHO, Police Station Sadar, Phase-I, Patiala (respondent No.3), the complaint dated 22.5.2010 (Annexure-P.6) and postal receipt (Annexure- P.7) have been placed on record. Despite the said complais the threat to the petitioners persists. Therefore, they have filed the present petition. 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. Besides, she is happy with her marriage. In the afore-noticed facts and circumstances, the present 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 shall be duly considered and looked into by them independently and in accordance with law. May 25, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*