Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the father-in-law and daughter-in-law for protection of their life and property, since there is serious threat for their inter religion marriage. Presently, the boy is in Germany and he will be able to come to India only in the month of May, 2012 for identification, if necessary, before the Court. The Supreme Court has considered such type of issue repeatedly in the case of Gian Devi v. Supdt., Nari Niketan, Delhi, (1976) 3 SCC 234 , at page 235 : "Whatever may be the date of birth of the petitioner, the fact remains that she is at present more than 18 years of age. As the petitioner is sui juris no fetters can be placed upon her choice of the person with whom she is to stay, nor can any restriction be imposed regarding the place where she should stay. The court or the relatives of the petitioner can also not substitute their opinion or preference for that of the petitioner in such a matter".
(2.) Subsequently, the Supreme Court has held in Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475 , at page 480 : "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 that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with 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".
(3.) Such judgments were again followed by the three judges bench in S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600 , at page 614 : "31. ............................ At this juncture, we may refer to the decision given by this Court in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. , wherein it was observed that a live-in relationship between two consenting adults of heterogenic sex does not amount to any offence (with the obvious exception of "adultery"), even though it may be perceived as immoral. A major girl is free to marry anyone she likes or "live with anyone she likes". In that case, the petitioner was a woman who had married a man belonging to another caste and had begun cohabitation with him. The petitioner's brother had filed a criminal complaint accusing her husband of offences under Sections 366 and 368 IPC, thereby leading to the commencement of trial proceedings. This Court had entertained a writ petition and granted relief by quashing the criminal trial. Furthermore, the Court had noted that "no offence was committed by any of the accused and the whole criminal case in question is an abuse of the process of the court".;