JUDGMENT Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs : "(i) That, the respondents 1 to 3 may kindly be directed to provide necessary police protection to the petitioners from petitioner No.1 father Pooran Singh Bhadouria and other anti social elements in the interest of justice. (ii) That, the respondents 1 to 3 may kindly be directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioners on the basis of false complaints made by the father of petitioner No.1 or other family members of the petitioners. (iii) That, the action of the father of petitioner No.1 Pooran Singh Bhadauria and other anti social elements threatening the petitioners and interfering in this wedded life may kindly be declared to be illegal, null and void and consequently they be restrained from making such an act." 2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that both the petitioners are major and are of marriageable age and do not have any disqualification under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act. They have performed marriage on 16.11.2022 in Arya Samaj Shivkatra, Kanpur Nagar and have also got their marriage registered. The petitioner No.1 has an apprehension that her parents and her relatives may lodge false report against her husband or her in-laws, therefore, she made a complaint/application to the police Authority on 22.11.2022 praying for recording of her statement before proceeding further on the FIR/complaint made by the parents/relatives. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the petitioners. 4. The petitioners are the resident of Gwalior, whereas the marriage is alleged to have been performed at Arya Samaj Shivkatra, Kanpur Nagar. Counsel for the petitioners could not point out any provision of law, by which Arya Samaj Shivkatra, Kanpur Nagar is competent to issue any marriage certificate, therefore, this Court cannot rely upon the marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj Shivkatra, Kanpur Nagar. So far as the certificate of registration of marriage issued by Marriage Registration Officer, Kanpur Nagar is concerned, it appears that it has been issued in utter violation of Section 5 and 6 of Special Marriage Act. It is not the case of the petitioners that any of them was residing for a period of 30 days at a place within the territorial jurisdiction of Marriage Officer, Kanpur Nagar. It is not the case of the petitioners that any of them was residing for a period of 30 days at a place within the territorial jurisdiction of Marriage Officer, Kanpur Nagar. Further, there is nothing on record to show that any notice was sent to the Marriage Registration Officer at Gwalior as required under Section 6 of Special Marriage Act. Therefore, marriage certificate relied upon by the petitioners cannot be considered. 5. However, the next question is that when both the parties are major and are willing to live their life as per their wishes then whether, anybody has a right to commit offence against them. 6. The petitioner No.1 has sent a letter to the police Authority praying for recording of her statement before acting on the report lodged by her parents/relatives. 7. The prayer made by counsel for petitioners has to be considered in the light of following hypothetical questions: i. The parents of the petitioner No.1 might have lodged guminsan report. ii. The parents of the petitioner No.1 might have lodged an FIR of kidnapping/abduction of the petitioner No.1. 8. In both the cases, the central figure is the petitioner No.1. The stand of petitioner No.1 would decide the fate of the FIR or the guminsan report, and therefore, without interrogating the petitioner No.1, even otherwise, the police cannot proceed further with the investigation/enquiry. 9. Under these circumstances, although it is not required but still in order to remove the apprehension from the minds of the petitioners, it is directed that in case if any guminsan report or any FIR has been lodged against the petitioner No.2 or his family members in respect of the kidnapping/abduction of petitioner No.1 or missing report of petitioner No.1, then the police shall proceed only after recording the statement of petitioner No.1. 10. No other protection was sought by counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, with aforesaid observation, the petition is finally disposed of.