JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J The petitioner herein seeks mainly the following directions in the present writ filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:- “ (a) To issue a writ of mandamus, appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof, directing the respondents No.1 to 3 to take appropriate legal action against the private respondents as well as give full police protection to the petitioner and the proforma respondent No.8 so as to enable them to lead peaceful married life; (b) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof to give full justice to the petitioner in the circumstances of the case and may pass such further writ, order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, proper just and expedient in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The petitioner’s contention is that he was carrying on the business of Bee-keeping and in this connection, he had been visiting Mathura (U.P.) and other nearby places. During that time, he came in contact with proforma respondent No.8, resident of Village Sakraya, Tehsil Jainth, District Mathura, (U.P.) Both of them fell in love and intended to marry which was objected to by the parents of proforma respondent, whereas, the parents of the petitioner were agreeable to the said proposal. (ii) It is alleged that the proforma respondent, being major aged about 19 years, visited the village of the petitioner in the month of January, 2012 and on 31.1.2012, they solemnized marriage in Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Mahakaleshwar Mandir, Solan, photograph Annexure P-3 were also taken and affidavits were also sworn by both of them. The said Sabha also issued registration certificate of their marriage. Both of them lived together nicely, but however on 2.2.2012, 5th respondent, father of the proforma respondent visited his place alongwith respondents No.6 and 7 to reconcile the matter. He also gave duly sworn affidavit to his parents consenting marriage, but proforma respondent sensed some foul play and refused to accompany them, consequently lodged a complaint in Police Station on 4.2.2012, but the police concerned did not take any action. (iii) It is alleged that on 7.2.2012, the father of the proforma respondent registered a case under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Mathura, with the result, the petitioner was arrested. (iii) It is alleged that on 7.2.2012, the father of the proforma respondent registered a case under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Mathura, with the result, the petitioner was arrested. Ultimately, he filed an application No.8514 of 2012 for his bail in the High Court of Allahabad, which was allowed. (iv) It is further alleged that proforma respondent was taken by her father and Shri Sanjay Dutt respondent to their home and he is not in a position to contact her and apprehended some worst against her like honour killing as prevalent in that area. 3. Shri P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly put stress on the order passed in bail application by the Allahabad High Court wherein it is mentioned that medical examination estimated the age of proforma respondent 19 years, whereas her school certificate, she is 17 years. Even a reference is also made to in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein she stated that she went with the petitioner of her own accord. Thus, the age is material for consent and the factum of marriage of the petitioner in the light of criminal case pending against him is very much in dispute. The petitioner, in view of the above facts here, has also an alternative remedy to file a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Allahabad High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings against him, if so advised. But however, we do not find that any of the fundamental/ constitutional right of the petitioner in disputed facts is infringed, especially when the case of abduction is under investigation and ultimately in trial against him. 4. Thus, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion for the relief sought, as such, the petition is not maintainable, hence dismissed in liminie, so also the pending application(s), if any.