P.K. Lohra, J. - (1.) Petitioners have preferred this writ petition claiming, inter-alia, under-mentioned reliefs: 1. Respondent authorities may kindly be directed to provide appropriate protection to the petitioners at their native place. 2. Respondent authorities may kindly be directed not to chase the petitioners. 3. Respondent No. 4 & 5 including the relatives of the respondent No. 4 & 5 may kindly be restrained from interfering in matrimonial life of the petitioners, in case of lodging any report or case, before the respondent No. 3.
(2.) The factual matrix giving rise to this writ petition is that petitioner No.2 entered into matrimony with one Neeta on 19th of June 1997 but due to acrimony between the spouses, Smt. Neeta started living separately from October 2003. The seeds of discord between the spouses continued unabatedly and ultimately a joint decision was taken by both of them for dissolution of marriage. In terms of the decision, a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act 1995 was submitted before the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai and the said petition was decided by the judgment and order dated 19th of August 2013 annulling the marriage. After dissolution of his first marriage, the second petitioner entered into matrimony with the first petitioner Smt. Mamta after a courtship of almost 3-4 years.
(3.) It appears that liaison between the petitioners, which is per-se incompatible looking to the age difference between the spouses, was not approved by the parents of the first petitioner. The difference of age between the spouses is almost 27 years inasmuch as the first petitioner is aged 27 years whereas second petitioner is 50 years old. For proving the factum of marriage, petitioners have produced a marriage certificate issued by Pradhan, Arya Samaj, Guro ka Talab, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur dated 23rd of January 2014, however, requisite registration of marriage by a competent authority has not been placed on record. Petitioners have specifically averred in the petition that nuptial between them was solemnized out of personal volition and at the time of marriage both were major, and therefore, there cannot be any cause of complaint to anyone including the respondents No.4 & 5.;