ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relief(s) :- 7-1 ;g fd ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls fuosnu gS fd] izfr;kfpdkdrkZ Øekad 1 o 2 dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkos fd] ;kfpdkdrkZ dh ifRu dykorh dks izfr;kfpdkdrkZ Øekad 3 yxk;r 5 ds voS/k fujks/k ls eqDr djkdj ;kfpdkdrkZ dh lqiqnZxh esa nsosa rFkk ;kfpdkdrkZ ,oa mldh ifRu ds lkFk dkfjr dh xbZ ?kVuk ds fo#} mfpr oS/kkfud dk;Zokgh djus gsrq izfr;kfdrkdrkZ Øekad 1 o 2 funsZf'kr djsaA 7-2 ;g fd izfr;kfpdkdrkZ Øekad 1 o 2 dks ;g Hkh funsZf'kr fd;k tkos fd os ;kfpdkdrkZ ,oa mldh ifRu dykorh dh tku eky dh lqj{kk iznku djs ,oa izfr;kfpdkdrkZ Øekad 3 yxk;r 5 dks Hkh funsZf'kr fd;k tkos fd og Hkh ;kfpdkdrkZ ,oa mldh ifRu dykorh ds O;fDrxr thou esa gLr{ksi u djs o u >wBk izdj.k iathc} djkosaA 7-3 ;g fd vU; dksbZ lgk;rk] vuqrks"k ekuuh; U;k;ky; U;k;fgr eas mfpr le>s og ;kfpdkdrkZ dks izfr;kfpdkdrkZ ls fnykbZ tkosA 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he got married to Ms Kalawati on 4.12.2020 in Arya Samaj Mandir. Since, it was a love marriage performed without the knowledge of the family members of his wife, therefore, her family members were not happy. However, after the situation got normalized, his wife went to the house of her maternal uncle. On 11.4.4021, his wife called the petitioner, and requested that She be taken back. Accordingly on 12.4.2021, the petitioner went to the house of the maternal uncle of his wife, and when they were coming back on the motor cycle, they were waylaid by the respondent No.3 and his companions and started assaulting the petitioner and also abused him. The petitioner got afraid, and some how managed to run away and thereafter, the respondent No.3 took back his daughter. Accordingly, the petitioner has made a report to the police, but no action has been. Accordingly, this petition has been filed seeking the above mentioned relief(s). 3. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. 4. The story put forward by the petitioner does not appear to be very convincing. When the wife of the petitioner was already in the house of her maternal uncle, then the respondent No.3 who is the father of Ms. Kalawati, could have detained her or could have taken her to his house. 5. 4. The story put forward by the petitioner does not appear to be very convincing. When the wife of the petitioner was already in the house of her maternal uncle, then the respondent No.3 who is the father of Ms. Kalawati, could have detained her or could have taken her to his house. 5. Be that as it may. 6. This case appears to be that of restitution of conjugal rights. 7. The petitioner has an efficacious remedy under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of his conjugal rights, where the claim of the petitioner would be decided after recording of evidence. 8. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail statutory remedies available to him under Hindu Marriage Act. 9. However, it is directed that the respondent No.3, either himself or through his agents, shall not cause any harm to his daughter Ms. Kalawati. This interim protection shall remain in force for a period of one month from today, to enable the petitioner to file a suit for restitution of conjugal. If the suit is filed, then the trial Court shall be free to pass any interim order without getting influenced by this interim protection.