JUDGMENT 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. 4. Castigating aspersions on respondents No. 4 & 5, who are parents of the first petitioner, petitioners have pleaded in the writ petition that since marriage they are harassing the couple and hurling threats to them. 4. Castigating aspersions on respondents No. 4 & 5, who are parents of the first petitioner, petitioners have pleaded in the writ petition that since marriage they are harassing the couple and hurling threats to them. Although petitioners have averred in the writ petition that private respondents are threatening them after their marriage but no specific incident has been quoted for substantiating the threat perception to their life and liberty. 5. The allegations against the respondents No. 4 & 5 are absolutely vague, cryptic and mellow, which are not inspiring confidence. Mere ornamental phrase, that respondents are constantly chasing them and are involved in violent activities, is not sufficient to persuade this Court to issue any positive direction to the respondents for extending protection. Entering into matrimony by the first petitioner with the second petitioner with age difference of 27 years is the root cause of acrimony between the first petitioner and her parents, and their disapproval for the said liaison, in the given circumstances, at the most can be categorized as the parental concern for her well-being. 6. There are eight kinds of marriages, according to the Hindu law books. Brahma Vivah, Daiva Vivah, Arsha Vivah, and Gandharva Vivah are the main forms of marriages in Hinduism. Gandharva Vivah: Mutual love and consent between bride and the bridegroom brings about this kind of marriage. This kind of marriage is a voluntary union of a maiden with her beloved. Parents and kinsmen do not play any role in such marriages. Hindu mythology literature has such type of marriages in abundance. Some of the well known mythological pairs are Bhima with Hidimba; Dushyant and Shakuntala; Kamdeva and Rati, Daksheya and Prajapati, Kach and Devyani etc. The alleged nuptial between both the petitioners may not be per-se forbidden but the age difference between both the spouses is certainly a legitimate reaction of parental indignation vis-a-vis mismatched couple. This sort of reaction of respondents No.4 & 5 i.e. parents of the first petitioner is usual and in consonance and conformity with a normal human psychology. Extreme age differences between husband and wife, which is of 27 years in the instant case, may not be congenial for keeping the marriage on track for longer duration, as it may lead to infidelity according to author and infidelity expert Ruth Houston. 7. Extreme age differences between husband and wife, which is of 27 years in the instant case, may not be congenial for keeping the marriage on track for longer duration, as it may lead to infidelity according to author and infidelity expert Ruth Houston. 7. Therefore, in totality, expression of dissent for such relationship of the petitioners by the parents of the first petitioner cannot be per-se termed as influenced by orthodox notions, the primitive concept of castiesm and so called family traditions. However, in the civilised society, there is no room for violent and criminal activities for expressing voice of dissent. In want of any proof about possible threat perception from respondents No.4 & 5 to the petitioners, in my considered opinion, it is not possible to infer that there is any likelihood of threat to life and liberty of the petitioners within the four corners of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. The decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Lata Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. [ (2006) 5 SCC 475 ] relates to inter-caste marriage wherein noticing imminent threat to life and liberty of the spouses, and while examining the scope of Article 21, 25 and 19(1)(a), Hon'ble Apex Court concluded that right to marry person of ones choice is within the right of freedom of conscience and expression. Taking serious note of the incidence of honour killing, which is menace to the society, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: 17. The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when we have to be united to face the challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence, inter-case marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying the caste system. However, disturbing news are coming from several parts of the country that young men and women who undergo inter-caste marriage, are threatened with violence, or violence is actually committed on them. In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. 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-casts 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. 9. Well it is true that to marry a person of ones choice after attaining adulthood/majority emanates from Article 19(1)(a) & 21 of the Constitution and anyone objecting to the said liaison of the spouses by resorting to violent and criminal acts cannot be appreciated. However, expression of parental concern for the well being of their child cannot per-se be categorized as a threat perception to the child and his/her spouse. In want of any cogent material to substantiate the allegation that private respondents have done any overact or a criminal act having direct ramification on the right to life and liberty of the petitioners, I am afraid, this Court cannot issue general direction to the respondents for extending protection to the petitioners. The facts of the instant case are clearly distinguishable from the facts in Lata Singhs case (supra) where the facts were glaring and there was prima facie proof about the threat to life and liberty of the spouses. The facts of the instant case are clearly distinguishable from the facts in Lata Singhs case (supra) where the facts were glaring and there was prima facie proof about the threat to life and liberty of the spouses. Thus, viewed from any angle, I am not inclined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of petitioners in the instant case to issue any mandamus to the respondents for extending protection to the petitioners. 10. Resultantly, I find no force in this petition and the same is dismissed summarily. It is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition shall not be an impediment for the petitioners to seek protection from the respondents if there is a reasonable apprehension about threat perception to their life and liberty and the same is reported to the respondents No.2 & 3 with concrete proof.Petition Dismissed. *******