JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for seeking appropriate directions against the respondents No.1 to 3 to provide them appropriate protection at their native place. Apart from the aforementioned relief, the petitioners have also craved for a restraining order against respondents No.4 to 10 for not interfering in their peaceful marital life. 2. Apposite facts, necessary for adjudication of this petition are that both the petitioners are residents of same locality in village 10 K.D. Rawla, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sriganganagar (Raj.) and in due course of time developed affinity with each other. After courtship for some time, the petitioners decided to enter into matrimony and for that purpose they jointly eloped from their native place, i.e., Rawla, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sriganganagar (Raj.). Being major, both the petitioners, by their volition, solemnized marriage at Arya Samaj, Jodhpur on 17th June, 2013 and a certificate to this effect was issued by Arya Samaj, Jodhpur. As a token of proof, photographs of marriage were also enclosed with the writ petition. After solemnizing marriage, both the petitioners shifted to Sadulsahar to enjoy their marital life, but the family members of the second petitioner did not approve their liaison. In these circumstances, family members of second petitioner solicited help of police and the second petitioner was forced to leave her matrimonial home. As a matter of fact, before this incident, a missing report was lodged at the behest of family members of the second petitioner and thereafter a FIR was also lodged against the first petitioner attributing offences punishable under Sections 342, 366, 376, 468 and 120B IPC. Pursuant to the FIR No.290/2013, statements of second petitioner, Gagandeep Kaur were also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and during investigation, the first petitioner was arrested. The first petitioner, thereafter, applied for bail and eventually he was released on bail by this Court. 3. In the interregnum period, as both the petitioners were apprehending some untoward incidents and endanger to their life and liberty, a writ petition was filed by them jointly before this Court which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8492/2013, wherein prayer was made for extending them adequate protection. 3. In the interregnum period, as both the petitioners were apprehending some untoward incidents and endanger to their life and liberty, a writ petition was filed by them jointly before this Court which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8492/2013, wherein prayer was made for extending them adequate protection. During the pendency of aforesaid writ petition, the second petitioner was forced to leave her matrimonial home for the reasons stated here-in-above and the first petitioner was arrested pursuant to FIR No.290/2013, the writ was not pursued and as such was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.07.2013 Subsistence of matrimony between both the petitioners and persistence of first petitioner to bring back second petitioner at her matrimonial home aggravated acrimony between the family members of the second petitioner and the first petitioner. Acrimony took serious turn and when the petitioner attended the Court at Gharsana on 9th October, 2013 with his friends, an attempt was made to cause him bodily harm by way of firing. The said incident was reported to the police and an FIR No.430/2013 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 341, 323, 427, 147, 148, 149 and 365 IPC and 27 of the 3Arms Act against the private respondents. Besides firing at the first petitioner, the family members of the second petitioner also threatened the second petitioner with dire consequences for her liason and affinity with petitioner, Amardeep. In these circumstances, a complaint was lodged by the first petitioner against the family members of Gagandeep under Sections 107 and 116(3) Cr.P.C. Some of the facts, which are necessary and germane to the matter, are that when the second petitioner was living with her parents after the alleged marriage, the first petitioner laid a petition for habeas corpus before this Court alleging therein that she has been unlawfully detained by her parents and other family members. The habeas corpus petition was registered as D.B. Civil Habeas Corpus Petition No.281/2014. While issuing notices, Division Bench directed police authorities to produce Gagandeep Kaur before the Court. When Gagandeep Kaur appeared before the Court, the Court conferred with her in camera and thereafter in presence of all concerned. During the proceedings, the second petitioner made a categorical statement that she is presently living with her maternal at Abohar and she is interested to live with her paternal and maternal families only. When Gagandeep Kaur appeared before the Court, the Court conferred with her in camera and thereafter in presence of all concerned. During the proceedings, the second petitioner made a categorical statement that she is presently living with her maternal at Abohar and she is interested to live with her paternal and maternal families only. Taking into account said stand of the second petitioner, the habeas corpus petition filed by the first petitioner was dismissed by order dated 21st January, 2014. 4. Be that as it may from the facts averred in the writ petition, it reveals that after dismissal of habeas corpus petition, the second petitioner left her parental house at her own volition and joined the first petitioner and according to the averments presently they are living together as couple. With all these facts, the petitioners have prayed for the reliefs mentioned supra. By taking shelter of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have specifically pleaded that there is a reasonable apprehension that the private respondents may resort to any criminal or violent activity to harm them physically. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record. 6. There cannot be two opinions that the orthodox notions, primitive concept of casteism, and so called family traditions are nothing but a blatant attempt to nurture and reinforce wholly obsolete and redundant perceptions against the inter-caste marriages. Such attempts are contrary to the social fabric of our society having obvious ill-effects on the social model and educational ethos about concept of marriage in present era. Need of the hour is to hatchet the abhorrent customs and taboos to have a pragmatic approach in such situations. 7. Honour killing in the name of pseudo pride of the family has become menace to the society. 8. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lata Singh v. State of U.P., [2006 Cr.L.J. 3312] , while deprecating the prevalent caste system, has made following observations:- 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-caste marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying the caste system. 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-caste 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. 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 marriage or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple are not harassed by any one nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and any one 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. 18. We sometimes hear of 'honour' killings of such persons who undergo inter-caste or inter-religious marriage of their own free will. There is nothing honourable in such killings, and in fact they are nothing but barbaric and shameful acts of murder committed by brutal, feudal minded persons who deserve harsh punishment. Only in this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism. 9. Freedom of life and liberty of citizens is a matter of serious concern for the Court and in appropriate cases, requisite directions can be issued to extend protection to the citizens. Only in this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism. 9. Freedom of life and liberty of citizens is a matter of serious concern for the Court and in appropriate cases, requisite directions can be issued to extend protection to the citizens. However, on a close scrutiny of peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, there are certain pitfalls, which are noticeable having definite impact on the prayer made in the petition. The second petitioner has not shown consistency in her behaviour vis-a-vis the first petitioner. This fact is clearly discernible from her clear stand before the Division Bench that she is living with her paternal and maternal at her own volition and wants to live with them. The order passed by the Division Bench is reproduced as under:- The alleged detenu in this case, daughter of the respondent No.4 has been produced before us. It is submitted that she has been brought here today by her parents. The CO, Anupgarh with the Lady Constable are also present. The parents of the girl are also present. We have conferred with the girl in Camera and, thereafter, in the presence of all the concerned. The daughter of the respondent No.4 has made her statements clear and forthright before us that she is at present living with her maternal and Abohar and as at present, she is interested in living with her parental and her maternal families only. It is and admitted position that the daughter of the respondent No.4 is above 19 years of age. So far this petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus is concerned, when we find that the daughter of the respondent No.4 cannot be said to be in any illegal detention or confinement, no further orders appear requisite. Hence, it appears appropriate to terminate the proceedings in this petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus with observations that disposal of this petition, by itself, will not be of any bearing on the other proceedings, which shall be required to be dealt with by the appropriate forum in the appropriate matter. The CO concerned and the Lady Constable shall ensure safe passage of the respondent No.4 and his daughter to the destination of their choice. Subject to the observations foregoing, this petition stands dismissed. 10. The CO concerned and the Lady Constable shall ensure safe passage of the respondent No.4 and his daughter to the destination of their choice. Subject to the observations foregoing, this petition stands dismissed. 10. Thus, by examining the matter in its entirety, in the considered view of this Court, there appears to be no imminent threat to life and liberty of the petitioners within the four corners of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. That apart the chequered history of the case has prima facie made me to believe that the second petitioner is not forthright in her commitment to live with the first petitioner, Amardeep, as his legally wedded wife. 11. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant indulgence to the petitioners by way of issuing directions to respondent Nos.1 to 3 for extending protection to them. 12. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. It is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition shall not be an embargo for the petitioners to avail requisite protection from the police authorities, if occasion so arises in future in accordance with law.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******