JUDGMENT Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners Sri Hanumana Ram Bishnoi (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-husband) and Smt. Poonam (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-wife) are present in this Court and they have been identified by their lawyer. Petitioner-wife claims to have voluntarily married the petitioner-husband out of her own sweet will and is living with him without any coercion and compulsion, and denies that she has ever been kidnapped by petitioner-husband or anybody else. 3. Petitioners have annexed documents in support of their plea that both are adults and have married each other of their own freewill. 4. This case is not different from large number of similar cases coming to this Court wherein young girl and boy claim to be adults and raise a grievance that they have married or are living with each other of their own freewill and for that, they are being threatened and harassed by parents of one or other party generally in connivance with or with support of local police. 5. In cases where criminal case is lodged by parents of girl alleging that she is a minor or she has been kidnapped for immoral purposes, Police has a duty to investigate the case seriously, so that no crime is committed against a young girl, but in other situation, where the girl is adult and has chosen to live as wife with another adult of her own freewill, the Police is required to give due protection and ensure that no harm is caused to such young couple only because the parents do not approve the decision of their children to marry as per their choice although the children have become adults. 6. In the case of Deepika and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (9) ADJ 534 , this Court having analysed the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as by this Court in the cases cited in the judgment, held that where a boy and a girl are major and they are living with their free will, then, nobody including their parents, has any right to interfere with their living together. 7. In the said case the Court also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396 . 7. In the said case the Court also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396 . It is apt to extract relevant paragraph 28 of the said judgment, which reads as under: - "28. ..... Often young couples who fall in love have to seek shelter in the police lines or protection homes, to avoid the wrath of kangaroo courts. We have held in Lata Singh case that there is nothing "honourable" in "honour" killings, and they are nothing but barbaric and brutal murders by bigoted persons with feudal minds. In our opinion honour killings, for whatever reason, come within the category of the rarest of rare cases deserving death punishment. It is time to stamp out these barbaric, feudal practices which are a slur on our nation. This is necessary as a deterrent for such outrageous, uncivilised behavior. All persons who are planning to perpetrate "honour" killings should know that the gallows await them." 8. Disposal of writ petition in such cases may not be construed as grant of certificate by this Court that the alleged marriage is valid and in accordance with law, but nonetheless where girl and boy are adults and they are living together of their own freewill, the Police must give due protection after making enquiry in respect of claim of their age. Once the girl and boy are found to be adults, it is the duty of the Police as well as the Civil Society to ensure that they are not put to fear of their lives or liberty. 9. In the present case, both the petitioners have claimed to be adults and married to each other of their own freewill. It is further submitted that no FIR has been lodged in this regard so far. 10. However, for the future security of the petitioner-wife, the petitioner-husband is directed to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- in a nationalized Bank/post office in the form of fixed deposit for a period of not less than three years within one month in the exclusive name of the petitioner-wife. 11. The amount so deposited shall not be withdrawn before its maturity under any circumstances except with the leave of the family court concerned. 12. 2,00,000/- in a nationalized Bank/post office in the form of fixed deposit for a period of not less than three years within one month in the exclusive name of the petitioner-wife. 11. The amount so deposited shall not be withdrawn before its maturity under any circumstances except with the leave of the family court concerned. 12. The concerned bank/post office shall be instructed by the depositor (petitioner-husband) to make a specific note in the record as well as on the fixed deposit receipt that the same shall not be encashed before maturity except with the leave of family court concerned, nor any loan will be taken against the said fixed deposit. 13. Since marriage is not registered, petitioners are directed to get their marriage registered with the Registrar concerned within six weeks. 14. In case the petitioner-husband fails to fulfill any of the conditions mentioned herein above, the benefit of the order granted by this Court shall not be available. 15. Writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with liberty to petitioners to approach the concerned Superintendent of Police or Senior Superintendent of Police with a certified copy of this order, so that petitioners are not threatened or tortured by any person, even if they happen to be the parents of petitioners, against law and respondents are restrained from interfering in any manner with the peaceful living of the petitioners. 16. If any fact mentioned above is found to be incorrect, respondents may move this Court for appropriate order.