M.M.S.BEDI, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of a bunch of 13 petitions as the common question of law and facts arise in the all the said petitions.
(2.) APPREHENDING threat to their life and liberty at the hands of the State authorities i.e. Police on the instance of their family members, a large number of young couples have approached this Court for a direction to the respondents that interference in their married life may be prohibited, taking the shelter of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Pendency of about 40 petitions for motion hearing by young couples on the cause list of this Court today is indicative of the fact that there has been remarkable change in the last few decades revolutionizing the entire outlook by bringing radical changes in the attitude and approach of the society towards various social practices, calling upon the Courts to consider the scope of the right of life and liberty invoked by the young couples of 'run away marriages' or 'rebellion marriages' performed against the wishes of the other members of the society i.e. their parents. The common features of all the above said petitions are as follows : (i) the petitioners claim themselves to be majors and having married recently against the wishes of the parents of one of the spouses; (ii) the petitioners in all the cases apprehend threat to their life and liberty at the hands of the police officials; (iii) the petitioners have an apprehension that after the arrest of the husband the wife will be taken away by her parents against her wishes or will be harmed in one way or the other; (iv) a direction has also been sought for in all the cases for protection of life and liberty at the hands of the private respondents who happen to be the family members of either of the spouses. (v) the marriage in all the cases is not registered with any authority but the petitioners are supported by some photographs indicating that some ceremony of marriage has already taken place. (vi) it appears that indirectly the petitioners want a sanction or approval of their marriage from the High Court to protect them. (vii) there are certain instances of inter -caste marriages which is not acceptable to the society or the family members. The petitioners in all the above said cases have approached the Court on the basis of the few judicial precedents, for instance in Lata Singh v. State of U.P., 2006(3) RCR(Criminal) 870 : 2006(3) RCR(Civil) 738 : 2006(2) Apex Criminal 670 : AIR 2006 SC 2522, where a young woman had married out of her free will and a complaint under Sections 366, 368 IPC had been filed by her brother against her husband and his relatives, the police had submitted the final report, despite a statement of the petitioner's wife under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she married at her own will. While quashing the entire criminal proceedings, a direction was issued by the Apex Court to the effect that administration/police authorities throughout the country would see to it that if any boy or girl who is major undergoes inter -caste or any religion marriage as 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.) THE reliance has also been placed on Manish Singh v. State (Government of N.C.T.) and others, 2006(1) RCR(Criminal) 653 : 2006(1) RCR(Civil) 414 : 2006(1) Law Reports on Crimes 414 (Delhi). In the said case, considering the run away marriages, the Court quashed an FIR under Section 363 IPC where a girl of 17 years, on the verge of maturity had accompanied the boy of her own volition without any kind of enticement or inducement or force from any one was alleged to have been kidnapped, observing as follows : "18. 'Run Away Marriages' are manifestation of a generational change due to variety of factor, including increased interaction between the sexes, with young boys and girls attaining maturity rapidly. It is a complex problem with interplay of social, economic, religious, caste, educational factors, including sex education and vulnerability and backwardness of the weaker sex having its impact. The Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 as well as relevant provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act are social legislations aimed at protection and development of the vulnerable sex and have to be interpreted and worked accordingly. The consequences of considering such marriages as void or voidable need to be evaluated since the State as well as the social reformists who have not been successful to change the mindset of the people tuned to early marriages. By an estimate, prevalence of child marriages in the major States of West Bengal, Rajasthan, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh varies from 56 to 59%. Moreover, it is also to be noted that any adverse fall out of any law that makes such underage marriages as void or voidable would be borne by none other than the women and their progeny. It is for the Parliament to consider whether the present provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and the Child Marriage Restraint Act have proved insufficient or failed to discourage child marriages and to take such remedial steps, as are required in their wisdom. 19. What we as Judges are ordained to do, is to interpret the law as it stands, and that is precisely what we have done. We have added the above clarification since erroneous or misreporting of judicial pronouncements on vital issues affecting a large sections of the population may erode public confidence in judiciary, essential for the very preservation of rule of law." ;