SUHANA PARVEN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have approached this Court through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking direction to the official respondents providing protection to the lives and liberty of the petitioners as they were allegedly apprehending danger to their lives at the hands of private respondents. Notice of motion was issued.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Inder Singh, Police Station Guhla, Distt. Kaithal submits that on verification of the age of both the petitioners, in compliance of the order dated 11.04.2012, date of birth of petitioner no.1 has been found to be 25.08.1989 and the date of birth of petitioner no.2 has been found to be 30.08.1991. Thus, both the petitioners have been found to be major.

(3.) HOWEVER, lest this order is misunderstood, it is clarified that this order shall not mean that the petitioners had reached the age of marriage, as required by the law applicable to them, at the time of their marriage or that their marriage is legal as per the relevant provisions of law. I say so because neither it is the issue involved in the present petition nor this Court is putting its seal of approval on the validity of marriage of the petitioners. In fact, it is the domain of the matrimonial Court of competent jurisdiction, to decide the validity of the marriage and that too on the basis of the pleadings taken and the evidence led by the parties in the given circumstances of each case.