Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.—Heard Mr. S. D. Sanjay, learned senior counsel with Mrs. Priya Gupta and Mr. Akshat Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Ansul and Mr. Md. Sufiyan, learned counsel on behalf of respondents no.8 and 9; and Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, learned Assistant Counsel to the learned Advocate General for the State/respondents no.1 to 7. The present hearing has been conducted in Chambers.

2. Yesterday, on 20.06.2022, the matter was taken up in Chambers and in terms of the order, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SSP, Patna’) and the City S.P., Central, Patna are present in person.

3. The Court had indicated yesterday that after interaction with the respondent no.10, we felt, and as she herself unequivocally expressed, she had voluntarily married the petitioner. Today, the father of the respondent no. 10 [viz. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh (respondent no.8)]; the mother-in-law of the respondent no.10 (Mrs. Jyoti Devi); brother-in-law of the respondent no.10 (Mr. Aatish Kumar); sister-in-law of the respondent no.10 (Mrs. Mona Shreen) as also the petitioner, are present before us. Besides them, Mr. Divyanshu Kumar and Mr. Prince Kumar, two of the three witnesses to the marriage solemnised between the petitioner and the respondent no.10 under The Special Marriage Act, 1954 are also present.

4. Today, the Court has interacted, in extenso, with the father of respondent no.10 (being respondent no.8) and the family members of the petitioner, noted supra. The Court is further convinced that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent no.10 is genuine and they want to continue with the marriage. Though, the respondent no.8 still has some reservation with accepting the relationship, but ultimately said that his only concern was that his daughter should be safe and secure. The family members of the petitioner took a clear stand that the respondent no.10 would be accepted in the house as a family member, would be given her due status and respect as the wife of the petitioner, and further, that they would not only not come in the way of the respondent no.10 pursuing what she wants academically or in life but would also actively support her in any such endeavour, which she may wish to pursue.

5. At this juncture, to allay the fears of the family of the respondent no.10, especially her father/respondent no.8 who is present in Court as also to ensure that the respondent no.10 is safe wherever she lives, including at the house of her in-laws as also the place where she may reside with her husband/petitioner, the Court solicited the views of the SSP, Patna as well as the City S.P., Central, Patna. They suggested a few short-term as also certain long-term measures.

6. Having had the benefit of their views, the Court feels that the concern of security can be appropriately addressed by the SSP, Patna and the City S.P., Central, Patna being the authorities competent to deal with the issue and most importantly, the Court reposes its faith in them inasmuch as they would make adequate arrangement to ensure the safety and well-being of the respondent no.10.

7. It is no more res integra that a girl, if major, is free to marry and/or reside with anyone of her choice. It is appropriate to revisit some authorities, foreign and domestic, to restate the legal position. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (be it noted, to which India is a signatory) reads thus:—

‘(1) Men and Women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution;

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses;

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society.’ (emphasis supplied)

8. Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Politica