The right to marry a person of one's choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution, and the State is legally bound to protect all its citizens' fundamental rights.

JUDGMENT

Satyen Vaidya, J. - By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ, in the nature of habeas corpus, for immediate release of detenu namely, Ms. Rajwinder Kaur aged 23 years daughter of Sh. Nirmal Singh, resident of Village Belna, Tehsil Haroli, District Una, H.P. and to appoint Warrant Officer to enable the release of detenu from the alleged illegal confinement of respondents No. 4 to 6. Further prayer has also been made seeking direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 to provide protection to the life and liberty of the petitioner and detenu.

2. Before adverting to the merits of the case, a glance at the proceedings of this Court in the instant petition, needs mention. Vide order dated 26.03.2021, this Court had directed the Superintendent of Police, Una to produce Rajwinder Kaur/corpus before this Court on 30.03.2021. On the date fixed, Ms. Rajwinder Kaur/corpus was produced in the custody of ASI Baldev Raj and LC Savita No. 156, Police Station, Haroli, District Una, H.P. In addition, parents of the parties and the petitioner also remained present before the Court.

3. On 30.03.2021, this Court had passed the following order:-

"Having interacted with the parties for a considerable time, we are of the considered view that they do require further time to reconcile with the prevalent situation. Accordingly, we deem it proper to defer hearing of the case by four week. Ordered accordingly. List on 27.04.2021."

4. In pursuance to the directions issued by this Court, the State filed instructions dated 29.06.2021 on 6th July, 2021. Copies of the instructions so submitted by the State were ordered to be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner and the case was ordered to be listed today.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the record.

6. Necessary facts culled out from the petition are as under:-

a) The petitioner claimed himself to be an old standing friend of Ms. Rajwinder Kaur who is stated to be aged 23 years;

b) The petitioner contended that he and Ms. Rajwinder Kaur had decided to marry but respondents No. 4 to 6 (father and brothers of Ms. Rajwinder Kaur) were not agreeable;

c) The petitioner was being threatened by respondents No. 4 to 6 and the Ms. Rajwinder Kaur was also being given beatings by them and was not being allowed to pursue her higher studies;

f) Respondents No. 4 to 6 are stated to be conservative and had threatened that they would kill their daughter, rather to allow her marriage with the petitioner. The religion of the parties is also stated to be different.

g) On 11.03.2021, the petitioner alleges to have received a text message from Ms Rajwinder Kaur to the effect that her father wanted to solemnize her marriage forcibly with other boy against her wish and if it happened, she would die.

h) The petitioner alleges to have approached respondents No. 2 and 3, but without any response.

I) On these averments, the petitioner has sought the reliefs as noticed above.

7. Ms. Rajwinder Kaur was produced before this Court on 30.03.2021. This Court had interacted with the parties for a considerable time and it could not be inferred from the conduct of Ms. Rajwinder Kaur that any fetters were placed on her either by respondents No. 4 to 6 or any other person. She did not complain that she was being forced not to marry a person of her choice.

8. In Girish vs. Radhamony K. and others,2009 16 SCC 360 , the Supreme Court has held as under:-

"3. Anjana Devi appeared in court and stated that she was a major and that she had married the appellant herein and she was living with him. Curiously enough, the High Court, instead of dismissing the petition and leaving the parties to take recourse to such other remedy which may be available to them in accordance with law, passed the impugned order directing registration of a case for offences allegedly punishable under Sections 366, 366-A and 376 of the Penal Code, 1860. In our opinion, the High Court had no jurisdiction