JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Jain J.(Oral)- This case has a chequered history. 2. Briefly put, the facts of the case are that the petitioner along with Amardeep Singh Gill filed CRM-M-14269 of 2009 against Union Territory, Chandigarh; Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh; Station House Officer, Police Sector 11, Chandigarh; and Harjit Singh son of Kartar Singh, father of Amardeep Singh Gill, alleging therein that Mandeep (petitioner) was born on 27.12.1985 and Amardeep Singh Gill was born on 1.8.1986 got married on 14.5.2009 as per Sikh Rites in Gurdwara, Guru Ka Bagh, Akali Bunga Nihang Singha, Khuda Ali Sher, U.T. Chandigarh. In the said petition, it was alleged that the petitioner (Mandeep) belongs to Kamboj community whereas Amardeep Singh Gill belongs to Sikh Jat Community. Due to their inter caste marriage, father of Amardeep Singh Gill was unhappy. Therefore, apprehending threat to their life and liberty at the hands of Harjit Singh son of Kartar Singh, the petitioner filed the said petition on 21.5.2009, which was disposed of by this Court on 22.5.2009 with the following order: - “The petitioners assert that they are major as there is no legal impediment, they have got married. Their marriage is opposed by respondent No.4, who is father of the petitioner No.1. Having regard to the constitutional protection, available to the petitioners, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No.2 and 3, to see that life and liberty to the petitioners is not breached at the hands of respondent no.4 and/or their associates.” 3. According to the petitioner (Mandeep), after the order dated 22.5.2009, she went to her parents, namely, Balbir Chand and Smt. Ram Bhakti, who said that she will be sent to her husband (Amardeep Singh Gill) after holding some function, but according to her she was illegally detained in one room of the house of her father, who happened to be the Principal of D.A.V. College, Sector 10, Chandigarh. It is also alleged that she was emotionally blackmailed and compelled by her parents to deny her marriage by leveling allegations of blackmailing against her husband (Amardeep Singh Gill). Pursuant to that, the petitioner alone had filed a petition, namely, CRM-M-17224 of 2009 against State of Punjab; UT, Chandigarh; Sr. It is also alleged that she was emotionally blackmailed and compelled by her parents to deny her marriage by leveling allegations of blackmailing against her husband (Amardeep Singh Gill). Pursuant to that, the petitioner alone had filed a petition, namely, CRM-M-17224 of 2009 against State of Punjab; UT, Chandigarh; Sr. Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur; Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh; and Amardeep Singh Gill (husband) seeking direction against the official respondents for protecting her life and liberty at the hands of Amardeep Singh Gill (her alleged husband) and his other accomplices, who under the garb of order dated 22.5.2009 were harassing and blackmailing her. In these proceedings, the statement of the petitioner was recorded by the Court on 3.7.2009, in which, she denied her marriage. However, the case was adjourned to 10.07.2009. In the meantime, it is alleged that on 9.7.2009, the petitioner approached her husband and disclosed as to how and in what circumstances the petition, namely, CRM-M-17224 of 2009 has been filed. This provoked her husband, namely, Amardeep Singh Gill to file a Crl.W.P.No.771 of 2009 of habeas corpus, which was listed before this Court on 9.7.2009, in which notice of motion was issued. In this petition, Amardeep Singh Gill has alleged that he is married to the petitioner (Mandeep), who has been illegally detained by her parents, namely, Balbir Chand and Smt. Rambhakti. 4. On 10.7.2009, when the matter came up before this Court in CRM-M-17224 of 2009, Amardeep Singh Gill made a statement before this Court that he is also not married to the petitioner. On this statement, it was ordered on 10.7.2009, that the factum of marriage, which was so stated in CRM-M-14269 of 2009, be ignored being a result of mis-statement made on behalf of Amardeep Singh Gill and also for the reason that the petitioner had made a statement on 3.7.2009 before this Court denying her marriage. However, the petition, namely, CRM-M-17224 of 2009 was ordered to be listed for hearing with Crl. W.P. No.771 of 2009 but CRM-M-17224 of 2009 was withdrawn by the petitioner on 27.8.20089 and Crl. W.P. No.771 of 2009 was withdrawn by Amardeep Singh Gill on 27.8.2009. After the disposal of the earlier petitions, the present petition, fourth in a row, has been filed by the petitioner impleading State of Punjab; Sr. W.P. No.771 of 2009 but CRM-M-17224 of 2009 was withdrawn by the petitioner on 27.8.20089 and Crl. W.P. No.771 of 2009 was withdrawn by Amardeep Singh Gill on 27.8.2009. After the disposal of the earlier petitions, the present petition, fourth in a row, has been filed by the petitioner impleading State of Punjab; Sr. Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur; Station House Officer, Sadar Jalalabad, District Ferozepur; and her parents, namely, Balbir Chand and Smt. Rambhakti and has sought a direction against respondent No.1 to 3 to ensure her freedom and to protect her life and liberty and that of her husband (Amardeep Singh Gill) from her parents. 5. In para No.7 of the present petition, it is mentioned that the earlier petition CRM-M-17224 of 2009 was filed due to threat having been exerted by her parents who had emotionally blackmailed her and had also threatened her that if she spoke against them and does not deny her marriage with Amardeep Singh Gill then her husband would be implicated in some false case of Narcotics or he may be even killed. It is also alleged that due to this threat and fear, the statement was made before the Court on 3.7.2009 and also on 10.7.2009 by her husband. 6. The petitioner has reiterated that she is married to Amardeep Singh Gill. Notice of motion was issued in this case when the case was listed before this Court on 15.9.2009. After recording the previous history of all the three cases, this Court had found that petitioner is confused as to whether she has been married or not. The Court found it to be improper to allow the prayer of the petitioner keeping in view her debilitating and confused attitude and directed that she be taken to Nari Nitaken, Sector 26, Chandigarh till the next date of hearing. In the meantime, the SSP, Chandigarh was also directed to ensure that no untoward harm is caused to the petitioner or said Amardeep Singh Gill. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 17.9.2009. 7. On the last date of hearing, dated 18.9.2009, the matter was adjourned for today and the order dated 15.9.2009 was ordered to be continued. In pursuant thereof, the petitioner has been kept in Nari Niketan, Sector 26, Chandigarh till today. 8. The first question involved in this case is as to whether the petitioner, who is major, should be kept in Nari Niketan? In pursuant thereof, the petitioner has been kept in Nari Niketan, Sector 26, Chandigarh till today. 8. The first question involved in this case is as to whether the petitioner, who is major, should be kept in Nari Niketan? 9. In order to prove her majority, the petitioner has filed Crl.Misc.No.48335 and Crl.Misc. No.48336 of 2009 in order to place on record documents Annexures P-8 and P-9, which are the driving licence of the petitioner as well as the detailed mark-sheet of Amardeep Singh Gill of his Sr. Secondary Examination of the year 2003. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the same are hereby allowed and the documents, Annexures P-8 and P-9 are taken on record. However, Crl.Misc.No.48334 of 2009 is not pressed at this stage by the counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, it is dismissed as not pressed. 10. According to Indian Majority Act, 1975, the person, who is a domicile of India and has attained the age of 18 years is a major and since the petitioner, who was born on 27.12.1985 has already attained majority. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Gian Devi Vs. The Superintendent Nari Niketan, Delhi and others” 1976 (3) Supreme Court Cases 234, has observed that “ 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. Since the petitioner has stated unequivocally that she does not want to stay in Nari Niketan, her detention therein cannot be held to be in accordance with law”. In this case, the Court has asked the petitioner in particular as to whether she wants to stay in Nari Niketan, to which she denied. 12. In view of the above, since the petitioner is major and cannot be forcibly kept in Nari Niketan, therefore, I set her free and order that she should be released from the Nari Niketan forthwith. 13. 12. In view of the above, since the petitioner is major and cannot be forcibly kept in Nari Niketan, therefore, I set her free and order that she should be released from the Nari Niketan forthwith. 13. The second question in this case is as to whether the petitioner, who has applied for protection in order to save life and liberty of herself and Amardeep Singh Gill whom she alleged to be her husband is entitled to the said protection? 14. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another” 2006 (5) Supreme Court Cases 475 has observed that “ 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.” 15. Mr.J.S. Bedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parents, namely, Balbir Chand and Smt. Rambhakti has vehemently contended that the petitioner is under duress due to some material with her alleged husband because of which she has rightly filed the petition, namely, CRM-M-17224 of 2009. 16. I have also asked the petitioner and her husband in Court whether they are married, to which they stated that they are married. The petitioner further stated that she wanted to go with her husband. 17. 16. I have also asked the petitioner and her husband in Court whether they are married, to which they stated that they are married. The petitioner further stated that she wanted to go with her husband. 17. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner seeking protection for life and liberty for herself and her husband Amardeep Singh Gill is allowed. Consequently, respondents No.1 to 3 are directed to provide adequate security to the petitioner and Amardeep Singh Gill in order to save their life and liberty at the hands of respondents No.4 and 5. 18. A copy of this order be given under the signatures of the Reader of this Court to the counsel for the parties as well as to HC Devinder Singh – In-charge of Nari Niketan to release the petitioner from Nari Niketan forthwith. ----------------