1. By invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a direction for the respondents to take immediate action against the culprits and mobile holders who have given threatening to the petitioner as per Annexure P/1. It is further prayed that respondents should provide adequate police protection and security to the petitioner so that he could enjoy his life and liberty. It is further prayed that as and when petitioner prays, the police be directed to provide him police protection.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a social worker and has engaged in protecting women and child from any kind of exploitation. The petitioner is running an organization namely “Mahila Vikas Samiti”. He is providing protection to the exploited women/children from domestic violence. The petitioner earlier visited this Court when he allegedly received threat to his life from somebody. In WP No.4976/2008 on 23.10.2008 an interim order was passed and respondents were directed to provide adequate protection to the petitioner. The said petition was subsequently disposed of by directing the respondent No.3 / SP, Bhind to look into the matter and do the needful so that justice can be done to the petitioner.

3. It is contended that after the disposal of the said petition, the police protection was provided to the petitioner for some time, but later on said protection was withdrawn without any justiciable cause. It is contended that petitioner was appointed as service provider by the State Government on 28.05.2009 and District Program Officer, Bhind has included the petitioner as an officiating member of 'Pariwar Paramarsha Kendra’, Bhind. It is further stated that the Collector, Bhind also authorized the petitioner to appoint a woman member in the protection cell. The petitioner is also appointed as a member of the cell. It is the case of the petitioner that he is discharging his duties as a service provider and taking necessary steps to provide helping hand to the victims of domestic violence. He is further providing helping hand to minor girls who are subjected to any kind of exploitation.

4. The petitioner received some information that in village Baghedi Thapa a minor girl (aged 16 years) may be forcibly married with a man, aged about 32 years. The petitioner reported the matter to City Kotwali on 17.01.2013 and requested to take up the matter to prevent said illegal marriage. In page 3 of the writ petition he quoted two cell phone numbers from where he has allegedly received threatening that if he takes up the issue against the said marriage, he will face dire consequences. Earlier this Court on 30.04.2013 provided interim protection to the petitioner by directing respondents No. 2 and 3 to provide adequate protection to the petitioner and ensure that because of the reason that petitioner made efforts to stop child marriage, he should not be put to jeopardy. The respondents have filed their return and stated that earlier the police protection was provided to him on 12.02.2009, but that protection cannot be provided for all times to come. However, it is contended that if this Court directs, police protection will be provided to him. It is further added in para 7 of the reply that police protection will be on the own expenses of the petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (for brevity “2006 Act”) came into being on 11.01.2007. Section 13 gives power to the Court to issue injunction to prohibit child marriages. Section 13(5) reads as under :-

“13. (5). The District Magistrate shall also have additional powers to stop or prevent solemnization of child marriages and for this purpose, he may take all appropriate measures and use the minimum force required.”

Section 16 speaks about Child Marriage Prohibition Officer. Sub-section 3 reads as under :-

“(3) The State Government may, by notification in the O