M.M.S.Bedi, J.

1. This order will dispose of a bunch of 13 petitions as the common question of law and facts arise in the all the said petitions.

2. Apprehending threat to their life and liberty at the hands of the State authorities i.e. Police on the instance of their family members, a large number of young couples have approached this Court for a direction to the respondents that interference in their married life may be prohibited, taking the shelter of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Pendency of about 40 petitions for motion hearing by young couples on the cause list of this Court today is indicative of the fact that there has been remarkable change in the last few decades revolutionizing the entire outlook by bringing radical changes in the attitude and approach of the society towards various social practices, calling upon the Courts to consider the scope of the right of life and liberty invoked by the young couples of `run away marriages or `rebellion marriages performed against the wishes of the other members of the society i.e. their parents. The common features of all the above said petitions are as follows :

(i) the petitioners claim themselves to be majors and having married recently against the wishes of the parents of one of the spouses;

(ii) the petitioners in all the cases apprehend threat to their life and liberty at the hands of the police officials;

(iii) the petitioners have an apprehension that after the arrest of the husband the wife will be taken away by her parents against her wishes or will be harmed in one way or the other;

(iv) a direction has also been sought for in all the cases for protection of life and liberty at the hands of the private respondents who happen to be the family members of either of the spouses.

(v) the marriage in all the cases is not registered with any authority but the petitioners are supported by some photographs indicating that some ceremony of marriage has already taken place.

(vi) it appears that indirectly the petitioners want a sanction or approval of their marriage from the High Court to protect them.

(vii) there are certain instances of inter-caste marriages which is not acceptable to the society or the family members.

3. The petitioners in all the above said cases have approached the Court on the basis of the few judicial precedents, for instance in Lata Singh v. State of U.P., 2006(3) RCR(Criminal) 870 : 2006(3) RCR(Civil) 738 : 2006(2) Apex Criminal 670 : AIR 2006 SC 2522, where a young woman had married out of her free will and a complaint under Sections 366, 368 IPC had been filed by her brother against her husband and his relatives, the police had submitted the final report, despite a statement of the petitioners wife under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she married at her own will. While quashing the entire criminal proceedings, a direction was issued by the Apex Court to the effect that administration/police authorities throughout the country would see to it that if any boy or girl who is major undergoes inter-caste or any religion marriage as a woman or man who is a major, the couple is not harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of violence and anyone who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law.

4. The reliance has also been placed on Manish Singh v. State (Government of N.C.T.) and others, 2006(1) RCR(Criminal) 653 : 2006(1) RCR(Civil) 414 : 2006(1) Law Reports on Crimes 414 (Delhi). In the said case, considering the run away marriages, the Court quashed an FIR under Section 363 IPC where a girl of 17 years, on the verge of maturity had accompanied the boy of her own volition without any kind of enticement or inducement or force from any one was alleged to have been kidnapped, observing as follows :

"18. `Run Away Marriage