The central legal principle established in the judgment is the recognition of the right to marry a person of one's choice as integral to Article 21 of the Constitution, and the protection of individual autonomy and freedom of choice in matters of marriage and partnership.

1. Petitioners, in person, present in the Court and have been identified by their counsel.

2. The petitioners claim to be major, as such claim to have contracted marriage according to their own will and choice.

3. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners seek issuance of directions to the official respondents to provide adequate security to them, on account of their allegedly facing threat to their life and liberty at the hands of respondent No. 5 to 8.

4. It is stated in the petition that though with the consent of parents of the petitioners a Betrothal ceremony was celebrated wherein all the family members of both the petitioners participated but unfortunately after the lapse of sometime, the father of petitioner No.2 in order to satisfy his greed for money offered by respondent No.8 tried to forcibly and without the consent of petitioner No.2 to give her in marriage to respondent No.8, as such, under these circumstances petitioners left with no option but to enter into marital know being major and have attained the age of puberty and also being competent as per their personal law to take a decision in this regard.

5. The date of birth of petitioner No.1-Zulfiqar Ahmed is recorded in the Aadhar Card issued by the Government of India, as 06.10.1997. In other words, petitioner No.1 is about 21 years of age; while as per copy of Aadhar Card, issued by the Government of India and Grade Card (Class 10th) issued by the J&K State Board School Education (Annexure ‘C’), date of birth of petitioner No.2-Shabnam Naz is recorded therein as 01.04.1999. In other words, petitioner No.2 is more than 19 years of age.

6. Learned counsel contends that the petitioners fulfil the age requirement as also other requirements under law to entitle them to get married. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioners in view of their mutual liking for each other, got married each other and executed Marriage Agreement before the Public Notary on 07.08.2018 (Annexure-A). They also performed Nikah vide Nikah Nama dated 07.08.2018 (Annexure-B).

7. Learned counsel contends that the petitioners apprehend threat to their life and liberty at the hands of respondent Nos.5 to 8, therefore, in the circumstances, they have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of directions to the official respondents to provide them security in accordance with law. Learned counsel states that the petitioners would be satisfied if the writ petition is disposed of by issuing direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to provide protection to the petitioners.

8. Notice. Mr. Arshad Malik, Dy. AG, waives notice on behalf of official respondents and raises no objection to the Court in disposing of the case in the afore said terms.

9. In similar circumstances, the Apex Court in Lata Singh vs. State of UP and anr., AIR 2006 SC 2522, has observed as under:-

“This case reveals a shocking state of affairs. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a major and was at all relevant times a major. Hence she is free to marry anyone she likes or live with anyone she likes. There is no bar to an inter-caste marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law. Hence, we cannot see what offence was committed by the petitioner, her husband or her husband's relatives..................”

The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when we have to be united to face the challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence, inter-caste marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying the caste system. However, disturbing news are coming from several parts of the country that young men and women who undergo inter-caste marriage, are threatened with violence, or violence is actually committed on them. In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. This is a free and democratic country, a