The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the legal provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in the context of protecting minors and addressing runaway couples.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kumar, J. - A rather disturbing phenomenon that has gained alarming momentum over the years is that of runaway couples - young persons who profess to love each other much to the dislike of one or both of their families and choose to defy them by running away from home. The concomitant fall-out of such acts on their part is the possible threat of physical harm or worse, sometimes on the basis of caste considerations, with the tacit or vocal approval of Khap Panchayats or community elders. These circumstances drive such couples to approach this Court for protection of their lives and liberty from their estranged family members.

2. The case on hand is one such. Preeti and Sahil, the petitioners herein, claim to have known each other for the last two years. They state that they fell in love but Preeti's parents, respondents No.4 and 5 herein, were opposed to their relationship. According to the petition averments, Preeti's parents started making arrangements to solemnize her marriage with a boy of their choice. Preeti is stated to have overheard her parents while they were talking about sending her with family members to perform Chunni ceremony in the last week of June, 2020. Preeti claimed that she opposed the decision of her parents and requested her mother, with folded hands, not to spoil her life as she had already chosen her life partner, the 2 nd petitioner. However, her parents did not accede to her request and her father directed her mother to be vigilant about Preeti's movements and restrictions were imposed upon her.

3. Preeti further claimed that when she got an opportunity to run away from her home on 18.06.2020, she immediately contacted Sahil and told him about her parents' decision to solemnize her marriage with a boy of their choice. The petitioners stated that they ran away together from their homes on 18.06.2020 and got married on 23.06.2020 at a temple in Panchkula. Photographs were filed in proof of this marriage. According to the petitioners, Preeti's father proclaimed that he would not spare them and would kill both of them. Claiming to have received continuous threats of this nature, Preeti and Sahil addressed representation dated 23.06.2020 to the Superintendent of Police, District Sonipat, the 2 nd respondent herein. Therein, they stated that Preeti had run away from her home on 18.06.2020 and contacted Sahil and that they thereafter solemnized their marriage on 23.06.2020. They further stated that they were receiving severe threats from Preeti's parents, who were hell bent upon killing them, and prayed for stern legal action to be taken. Thereafter, complaining of inaction on the part of the 2 nd respondent upon the aforestated representation, they filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the police authorities to provide them protection from the 4 th and 5 th respondents and their relatives.

4. The petition averments disclosed that Preeti's date of birth is 01.08.2003. She was, therefore, a minor as on the date she left her parental home. In matters of this nature, where the girl who ran away from home is a minor, this Court tries to protect her interest either by entrusting her custody to her parents or by sending her to a Nari Niketan/Women's Home. Most times, this course of action is not to the liking of the girl who would have approached this Court along with her paramour seeking protection, but such orders are usually passed by this Court in exercise of its parens patriae jurisdiction under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent dated 21 st March, 1919.

5. In keeping with this practice, this Court passed an order on 26.06.2020, noting that Preeti was not even 17 years of age and that there was no proof of a valid and lawful marriage having taken place between her and Sahil, who was himself just 18 years of age. Notice was accordingly directed to be served upon Preeti's parents, respondents No.4 and 5 and, in the meanwhile, the police authorities were directed to ensure that no