The central legal point established in the judgment is that the marriage of a minor girl under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is neither void nor voidable, as per the provisions of Sections 5, 11, and 12.

Raj Mohan Singh, J.

Petitioners seek issuance of necessary directions to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for providing security to the petitioners and also not to harass the petitioners on the basis of false accusation.

2. On 22.12.2016, the petitioners were present in Court and were duly identified by learned counsel for the petitioners. The date of birth of petitioner No. 2 was found to be 10.06.1999 and she was found to be minor at the time of solemnization of marriage with petitioner No. 1.

3. On 22.12.2016, following order was passed :-

"Petitioners duly identified by the counsel are present.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they have married on 16.12.2016 against the wishes of their parents-private respondents.

As per Aadhaar Card annexed with the petition (Annexure P2), the date of birth of petitioner No. 2 Gurpreet Kaur is 10.6.1999, which means, she has not attained the age of majority/marriage so far. Although, it is alleged that the petitioners had married but no marriage certificate or photograph of marriage etc. have been produced by the petitioners. Since, this petition has been filed for grant of protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners including petitioner No. 2-Gurpreet Kaur apprehending danger at the hands of respondents Nos. 4 and 5, who are none else but father and brother of Gurpreet Kaur and she (Gurpreet Kaur) is a minor, she is ordered to be sent to the Protection Home at Chandigarh.

Notice be issued to the respondents for 10.1.2017.

As far as petitioner No. 1 Jagdeep Singh is concerned, respondent No. 2, Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala is directed to provide necessary protection to Jagdeep Singh (petitioner No. 1) in case he appears and moves an application before him seeking protection for his life and liberty.

A copy of this order under the signatures of the Reader of this Court be given to the police official of Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh, who will send a lady police official to accompany Gurpreet Kaur (petitioner No. 2) to the Protection Home. She be produced in the Court on the date fixed."

4. Today, petitioner No. 2 has been brought in the Court by Lady Constable Jaspal Kaur from the Protection Home.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners very fairly stated that petitioner No. 1 has already been provided necessary police security by respondent No. 3-SHO.

6. Learned State counsel on instructions from Head Constable Som Nath stated that the police has already recorded statements of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 i.e. father and brother of the petitioner No. 2 on 07.01.2017 in which they have categorically submitted that they have no objection to the marriage between the petitioners and they will not harass the couple.

7. In view of aforesaid, the threat perception at the hands of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 prima facie stands negated, but still respondents Nos. 2 and 3 can be obligated to foresee any such further threat perception at the hands of private respondents for which they will keep on monitoring the security cover provided to petitioner No. 1 and now henceforth qua petitioner No. 2 as well.

8. The only question to be considered is whether the petitioner No. 2 who is still a minor can be allowed to go along with her husband.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Smt. Lila Gupta v. Laxmi Narain and others, AIR 1978 SC 1351. The Court observed, while referring to Sections 5, 11 and 12 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') in the following manner:-

"A comprehensive review of the relevant provisions of the Act unmistakably manifests the legislative thrust that every marriage solemnised in contravention or one of other condition prescribed for valid marriage is not void. Section 5 prescribes six conditions for valid marriage. Section 11 tenders marriage solemnised in contravention of conditions (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5 only, void. Two incontrovertible propositions emerge from a combined reading of Sections 5 and 11 and other provisions of t