ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Mr.L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided, finally.

2. By preferring this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have, inter-alia, prayed that the concerned Police authorities may be directed to provide police protection to the petitioners.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that both of them have attained the age of majority, being aged 23 and 22 years respectively. The petitioners were working together at Jewellery Showroom in Ahmedabad. Over a period of time, they fell in love with each other and decided to tie the marital knot. The petitioners got married on 20.07.2015 before the Registrar of Marriages under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Marriage Registration Certificate has been produced at Annexure-A to the petition. As the marriage of the petitioners was not liked by the parents of petitioner No.1 (wife) and was performed against their will and wish, the petitioners are, therefore, living separately. It is the case of the petitioners that the father of petitioner No.1 has been giving threats to the petitioners and to the mother of petitioner No.2. The petitioners, as well as the parents of petitioner No.2, apprehend danger to their lives and property. Under the circumstances, the present petition has been preferred.

4. Mr.Bhargav K. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioners, has submitted that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2007(1) GLH 41, and as both the petitioners have attained the age of majority, some protection is required to be granted, in order to protect the lives and liberty of the petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. Mr.L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that the application dated 11.07.2015, preferred by petitioner No.1 to respondent No.2, would be dealt with in accordance with law.

6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties and taken into consideration the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (supra).

7. There is no dispute regarding the fact that both the petitioners have attained the age of majority. There is enough material on record to indicate that the petitioners have got married to each other and their marriage has been registered. As such, having attained the age of majority, the petitioners are within their rights in taking their own decision regarding their lives.

8. In Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

(supra), the Supreme Court has held as below: “7. 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, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage. We, therefore, direct tha