INTRODUCTION:

‘Tell me then, does love make one a fool or do only fools fall in love?’

Orhan Pamuk, Nobel Laureate.

The above quote by noted Turkish author OrhanPamuk, who got the Nobel laurate in English literature, resonates the theme of run-away marriages. Run-away marriages, are viewed condescendingly by most patriarchal societies and in the bigger picture is almost a foolhardy step taken by bold and impetuous individuals.

Such like societies, such as our own endorse pigeon-hole pre-arranged marital norms when it comes to matrimony and individuals wanting to exercise personal choice are left with no resort other than to elope turning their choice marriage into a rebellious one. Elopements, which can actually be traced as an age-old unspoken societal prevalence, has been newly and simplistically identified by Indian law as run-away marriages. The legal reckoning of the expression run-away marriage came with the judiciary coining it to refer to the couples who invoke protection through courts to safeguard such marriages Its emergence is linked with a practice which is not usually accepted by society.

Honour is a core value of the Indian sociological construct wherein all communities aim to impeccably gain and maintain the family prestige. Broadly, connotations of honour and prestige are a yardstick whereby respect is ascribed by others and individuals can both gain and lose respect through money and power. However, along with these two elements, another aspect that accrues paramount importance is the purity, honour and izzat of the family, lineage and/or caste which is critically measured mainly through the behaviour and demeanour of the women in the family.Females are the repositories of family izzat –initially as daughter and sister, who then later assume roles of a wife and mother. The consequence is that if their conduct is dishonourable leading to any transgressions, women risk to tarnishing their family reputation and izzat irreversibly. The ideological norms revered in a community are ironically more or less imposed upon a woman and bind her into visible and invisible knots of appropriate behaviour within the society. Agrawal (2012) states that ideologies around sexuality are used to control women.Rather she affirms that women’s sexual and reproductive autonomy should be protected than protecting their sexual purity. The same could well tackle the roots of gender-based violence. Universal Human Rights, unequivocally reiterate fighting this gender based violence.(Devi, 2014)

This intangible yet conspicuous notion of ‘izzat’ creates the conditions for upholding the normative patriarchal codes of families and communities. Endogamous form of marriagebeing the accepted and approved form of marriage amongst most communities stringently deters any other form of marriage and more so the choice based love marriages become a strongly contested issue (Dogan, 2013).Run-away marriages are in fact an emerging manifestation of the vehement violation of the supposed ‘moral-ethical’ code of conduct laid down for females, wherein females marrying by choice are displaying their positive exertion of decision making by circumventing the traditional arranged marriage norms.

The terms Run-away marriages and Honour Killing are not casual interchangeable terms. It is imperative to note that the occurrence of the phenomenon of the latter succeeds the former, if the former is not granted adequate state protection. Taking stock of the situation regarding the issue of run-away marriages in India, the law has certainly accommodated the needs of the changing society. The society faces the difficult task of balancing precarious traditions of the previous generation with the legally tenable rights of the current generation. The law has stepped in actively to enforce and equip the victims who confront the ramifications of this turbulence. The legal reckoning of the expression run-away marriage came with the judiciary coining it to refer to the couples who invoke protection through courts to safeguard such marriages. Social resentment against run-away marriages has made couples entering such marriages seek protection by knocking the doors of the judiciary. Social reality manifests itself into cases of run-away marriages which are identified as ‘Protection Matters’ under law. They render a legally tenable right to life and liberty to persons under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 is a fundamental guarantee by law and is a legally enforceable Human Right.

The present paper aims to detail out the procedure, mechanism and requisite laws in place to enforce protection to run away couples invoking their fundamental right of ‘Article 21’ within, the State of Punjab. It further on examines the recent verdicts passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court as well as the Supreme court in this regard. Further it scrutinizes the pragmatic implementation of the established state protection homes in Punjab. The paper also presents certain practical and ground insights from the field as to the institutional protection sought most by run-away couples while also exploring their awareness regarding their approachability to established safe houses within their districts. The institutional intervention at this interface gains all the more momentum as it is the judiciary namely the District Courts and the High Courts, aspioneer institutions that have the prerogative to grant unconditional protection to couples who have performed the ‘much contested’ run away marriages against their families and society protocols. In this context it becomes all the more imperative to explore and deliberate upon the procedural mechanisms adopted as well as the role of the High Court inpassing milestone verdicts in protecting couples’ right to life and liberty who have performed run-away marriages. Further, it ought to be mentioned that the run-away couples seldom directly approach the Police. Rather, the executive machinery comprising the Police gets into action once the protection order has been passed by the Court directing the Police to provide the requisite protection to the couple in the run-away marriage. The institution of police in this context must function according to the rule of law. Policing must not be partisan or ignoring the voice of the marginalized and the victimised. Police is to be a service oriented institution composed of professionally trained officers where there is no dilution in command and responsibility. (Shubhang, 2012)

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

The study is based on Primary and Secondary data. The Secondary sources include United Nations documents and archives, books, working papers, journals, newspaper articles, governmental reports, bibliographies, unpublished dissertations, internet media reports and available literature from Non-Governmental Organizations and social activists for developing comprehensive view on the subject. The Primary data is based on the responses of both, female and male spouse respondents who were interviewed as a cohesive part of primary data sample of hundred run-away couples. The respondents were interviewed, based upon the Simple Random Sampling method, wherein the primary data was collected from run-away couples who evoked their fundamental right to life, from all over Punjab. The respondents had approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh for protection of their right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. They had eloped and contracted a run-away marriage against the wishes of either of the families of the male or female respondents prior to obtaining protection orders and were reportedly confronting an immediate threat to their lives.

The locale for the present study is confined to the State of Punjab, which has been chosen because a catalogue of cases procured from the Filing Branch of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh brought to light that out of a total number of 5,675 protection matters including run-away couples in 2013, Punjab stood at 4,041, Haryana at 1449 and Chandigarh at 185. Similarly, case catalogue for the year 2012, showed that out of a total number of 5,989 protection matters including run-away couples, Punjab stood at 4, 348, Haryana at 1,433 and Chandigarh at 208. Punjab has been chosen as the universe of study over Haryana because highest number of protection matters are filed from Punjab. The present data has been collected within the year 2015-2016.

DISCUSSION:

High Courts are flooded with the petitions filed by run-away couples in which the girls and boys, of majority age, are filing petitions seeking protection for life and liberty allegedly threatened by either parents. The petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which detail out the inherent powers of the High Court and its autonomy to handle and decide such cases under its ambit. These cases protecting these contested run away marriages give unconditional protection to the run-away couple protecting their life and liberty under Article 21. Interestingly, the High Court does not comment upon the validity of the run-away marriage as most of these marriages are not registered and are simply performed in Arya Samaj Mandirs, Gurduwaras etc. Hence, their validity remains doubtful. Hence, the High Court gives a simplistic order rendering protection to eloping couples who have performed run away marriages. This order entails expansive and unconditional protection to couples extending to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. enforcing the fundamental right of every individual to life and liberty. The same is enforced by the High Court under its jurisdiction within the purview of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code i.e. wherein the High Court exercises its Inherent Powers.

In the landmark case of Pardeep Kumar Singh Vs State of Haryana (recent criminal report, 2008) a large number of cases of run-away couples were decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh with the following directions:

(i)Whenever any intimation is received by the SSP/SP of concerned District regarding the marriage of a young couple with a threat and an apprehension of infringement of the right of life and liberty by the police at the instance of the family members of one of the spouses, the SSP/SP concerned will consider the representation and will himself/herself look into the matter and issue necessary directions to maintain a record of the said intimation under Chapter 21 of the Punjab Police Rules.

(ii) On receipt of above said intimation of marriage by any police officer, necessary directions will be issued to the concerned Police Station to take necessary steps in accordance with law to enquire into the matter by contracting the parents of both boy and girl. The matter regarding age, consent of the girl and grievance of her family will be determined. In the eventuality of any complaint of kidnapping or abduction having been received from any of the family members of the girl generally the boy (husband) will not be arrested unless and until the prejudicial statement is given by the girl (wife). Arrest should generally be deferred or avoided on the immediate receipt of a complaint by the parents or family members of the girl

(iii)If the girl is major (above 18 years), she should not forcibly be taken away by police to be handed over to her parents against her consent. Criminal force against the boy should also be avoided.

(iv)So far as the threat to the young couple of the criminal force and assault at the hands of the private persons is concerned, it would always be open to the police to initiate action if any substantive offence is found to have been committed against the couple;

(v)In case of any threat to the breach of peace at the hands of the family members of the couple it will always be open to the State authorities to take up the security proceedings in accordance with law;

(vi)It will not be open to the "run-away couple" to take law in their hands pursuant to the indulgence shown by the police on the basis of their representation sent to the SSP/SP of the concerned District;

(vii)If despite the intimation having been sent to the SSP/SP there is an apprehension or threat of violation of right of personal life and liberty or free movement, the remedy of approaching the High court should be the last resort;

(viii)In case there is an authority constituted for issuance of marriage certificate as per the law laid down by Supreme Court in Seema's case (supra) in the concerned districts, the couple of so called `run away marriage' should get the marriage registered in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court and a copy of the same should also be forwarded to the police along with the representations or any time subsequent thereto.

(ix)Nothing said here-in-above will prevent the immediate arrest of a person who fraudulently entices a girl with false promises and exploits her sexually as per the statement of the girl."

The above guidelines in the case continue to remain a guiding pedestal for the High Courts in the decision and disposal of protection matters. The Apex Court further taking a pioneer step in March 2018, in a Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra directed all States to compile data of such districts/sub-districts and villages where honour crimes occurred or Khap Panchayats assembled in the last five years. (“Khaps can’t interfere if consenting adults marry”, 2018) Based on this information, 24-hour special cells will be established in such district headquarters to receive complaints from aggrieved couples facing threats from Khap Panchayats or such other group of persons in any run away marriage/ protection matter.

An officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police shall conduct a preliminary enquiry into such complaints within a week and report to the SP. If the involvement of the members of Khap Panchayat is found, they will also be charged for the offence of conspiracy or abetment.

Further, District headquarters were also directed to establish a safe house to provide shelter to the runaway couple. They will be given protection by the State police, who may even provide logistical support for their marriage under police protection and allow them to stay at the safe house for a period ranging from one month to one year.The court order came on a PIL filed by NGO Shakti Vahini that claimed a spurt in Honour Killings. According to National Crime Records Bureau, 288 cases of Honour Killings were reported between 2014 and 2016 across the country. (“288 Honour Killing cases reported since 2014: Government”, 2017)

Chakravarti(2005) has explored conceptually the aspects of violence around ‘transgressive’ relationships wherein she states that, informal legal system such as panchayats are often pressed into service to punish those who seek to marriages outside the prescribed marriage circles and there is widespread sanction for the violence that follows across caste and religious communities. Thus an intricate nexus of social, material and cultural elements that necessitate and operate around specific marriage structures become deeply threatened when ‘love’ is chosen as the foundation of marriage by young couples. Once love, or choice is identified as a principle, accepting this choice by the community of the individual choices by the couple from within the close knit circle becomes difficult.

Elopements then stand to reflect and demonstrate ‘choice’ whereas the opposing families of the couple demonstrate as modes preventing and oppressing the same. This is the ground upon which the tussle between ‘criminality of marriage’ and ‘protection matters’ are played out in India. The laws, institutional practice and policies all get embroiled in the protection of the young couples who are running from pillar to post seeking protection from the High Court.

RESULTS:

In the light of the landmark 2018 judgment establishing and strengthening the role of safe houses by the Apex Court, the present paper is centred out the responses of 100 run away couples who were interviewed specifically focussing on the issue of institutional intervention that is so vital for the security and protection to the run-away couple post their elopement. The paper seeks to being out imperative results from the study as to (i) their first choice of institution that they approached after getting married to seek protection from their anguished families; and (ii) their awareness regarding State Protection Homes established in each District. The run-away couples were interviewed from the year 2014-2016. The run-away couples had all taken protection from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and the responses ae given as here-under.

(i) First response Institution approached by run-away couples post getting married for taking protection.

Sr. No.	Institution	Frequency
1.	Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh	88
2.	State District Courts	3
3.	Punjab State Human Rights Commission	9
Total		100

The above table represents theresponses of the run-away couples as to the first response institution that they approached before finally accessing the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh for protection. There are three categories given as the responses by the run-away couples wherein S. No. 1, comprising the majority frequency of eighty-eight run-away couples approached the High Court at Chandigarh right from the beginning. It is imperative to note here that this was the maximum frequency.

The next category was represented by S. No. 2, which reflected the least frequency of three run-away couples approaching the State District Courts for protection. It is important to make a mention here that despite approaching lawyers in the District and Session court in their respective districts in Punjab, these three couples also finally approached the High Court for expeditious disposal of their case. In all the three cases, the couples were directed by the district lawyers to approach the High Courts. It is important to mention here that the district court advocates in such cases, forward such cases to High Court advocates, who pay a 1/3^rd of their total fees to the district court lawyer as commission.

The final category comprised of nine run-away couples approaching the Punjab State Human Rights Commission i.e. S. No. 3, for protection and guidance. It is important to note that these nine couples were directed to approach the S.S.P Police, Chandigarh after they sought guidance from the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, wherein the S.S.PPolice of the concerned district is given a written representation to protect the couple, and particularly this representation is an insulation which directs the Police, as an investigative agency to acknowledge the consent of the run-away couple, particularly the female spouse respondent and to not register any false F.I.R against the male spouse respondent at the behest of the couple. This is primarily because the Punjab State Human Rights Commission is an advisory body which does not have any implementing powers. However, as a quasi-judicial institution it does supplement the District Court and the High Court in its functioning and it directs the run-away couples, to directly approach the Police wherein a representation is sent from the Punjab State Human Rights Commission’s office to the S.S.P Police directly to take action. In this process, the rigours of the court procedure are skipped, which in turn does reduce the burden of the Court. However, it is imperative to mention here that these nine couples were all incidentally accompanied by their respective lawyer from the district court. Interestingly, these couples had prior awareness of the procedure of the Human Rights Commission and preferred it over the court protection only because the advocates charged them a lesser fee for getting them protection from the commission than the High Courts.

At a more profound analysis, before the year 2010, the High Court was the sole institution empowered to give permanent protection to couples in run-away marriages. However, this had led to an extreme imbalance, where there was a tremendous burden on the High Court shouldering the disposal of protection matters. In keeping with this status, directions were passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, dated 31.3.2010 in the case of Asha and another Versus State of Haryana, CWP. 6717 of 2009, wherein the court stated that the run-away couples who had married against the wishes of their parents should be granted liberty to approach the District and Sessions Judges in Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh for grant of protection. Initially, this was interim protection, subject to confirmation by the High Court. This order passed in the year 2010, was made absolute, by the order dated July 25, 2012 by honourable Justice Jasbir Singh, the acting Chief Justice and Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Judge. This judgment was essentially passed with a dual motive to reduce the burden of incessant filing of protection matters in the High Court as well as to reduce the difficulties, both logistical and financial confronted by run-away couples who had performed run-away marriages and had no other alternative but to seek protection from the High Court at Chandigarh, coming from various districts spread out all over Punjab.

Upon further study, on the issue of run-away couples and probing the alarmingly high trend of protection matters which were continually still being increasingly filed in the High Court and not in the District Courts or the Punjab State Human Rights Commission (almost on the ratio of 1:30), a common consensus emerged. As regarding the District Court, one of the main reasons is that the run-away couple feels exposed and vulnerable, so presumably the close proximately to their home town being located in the same district renders a certain sense of insecurity. Another main reason is that in the District Court, the usual hearing of a protection matter particularly in Punjab, at times takes longer than just a hearing. At times, the Judge at the District and the Session Court follows procedural formalities as stated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein summons and notice is given to the corresponding opposing parties, who face court proceedings wherein evidence concurring, collaborating or contesting the particular marriage of male and female spouse respondents is correspondingly done. During this time, if requested for, the couple is kept at protection homes in the district wherein due to close proximity to home and despite police protection they feel vulnerable and insecure. In the District Court, the order that is given, is also mostly a simple protection order as in the High Court but owing to the chance that the couple stands to confront procedural formalities depending upon the bench wherein it opines on the validity of the marriage of respondents, confirming or denying the same. Even though protection matters are a Judge made law, the period between the first and final hearing of such protection matters in the District Court, which might not extend for later than a week, renders the female spouse respondent open to being intimidated by her family, increasing the chances of her turning hostile to the male spouse respondent. When faced such trying circumstances, the female spouse respondents ends up at times abandoning the marriage to return to her parents, leaving the male spouse respondent to face counter charges of kidnapping and/or abduction and/or wrongful confinement and/or rape.

As regards, the lesser number of run-away couples approaching the Punjab State Human Rights Commission in comparison to the High Court is primarily because firstly, very few couples are aware of the powers of the PSHRC in this arena. Secondly, majority of couples come seeking protection from the High Court primarily because they are under the misconception that they are performing a ‘court marriage’. One main reason is that most lawyers do not even give the option of the PSHRC to the couples as it means charging a lesser fee for the protection. Another main reason is that even for the run-away couples who are made aware of the Commission’s position regarding its powers to award protection through a representation to the police, it in a way is taking a chance. This is because the run-away couples are still exposed to the risk that there could be a chance that the police might not act accordingly, as the police is not directly accountable or liable to the Commission in case of any dereliction of duty. In contrast, any abuse or deflection of duty by the police on a protection order awarded by the High Court leads to proceedings against that SSP/SP of the concerned district.

In the High Court, a routine protection matter is disposed of within the first hearing itself. As such, High Courts are flooded with the petitions filed by run-away couples in which the girls and boys, of majority age, are filing petitions seeking protection for life and liberty allegedly threatened by either parents. The petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which detail out the inherent powers of the High Court and its autonomy to handle and decide such cases under its ambit. These cases protecting these contested run away marriages give unconditional protection to the run-away couple protecting their life and liberty under Article 21. Interestingly, the High Court does not comment upon the validity of the run-away marriage as most of these marriages are not registered and are simply performed in Arya Samaj Mandirs, Gurduwaras etc. Hence, their validity remains doubtful. Hence, the High Court gives a simplistic order rendering protection to eloping couples who have performed run away marriages. This order entails expansive and unconditional protection to couples extending to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. enforcing the fundamental right of every individual to life and liberty. It is important to make a mention that the S.S.P, S.P of police in the concerned district by way of the protection order are directly accountable to the High Court to ensure that there are no false and fabricated charges against the male spouse respondent in every run-away marriage. The same is enforced by the High Court under its jurisdiction within the purview of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code i.e. wherein the High Court exercises its Inherent Powers.

(ii) Awareness regarding the State Protection Homes established in respective Districts of the run-away couples.

Sr. No.	Response	Frequency
1.	Yes	6
2.	No	94
Total		100

Table (ii) denotes the responses of the run-away couples when asked about their knowledge and awareness regarding the State Protection Homes established for their assistance in their District. S.No. 1, signified the response of the couples who had previous knowledge about the existence of these protection homes in their District. However, S.No. 2, represented the most recurring majority response of a denial in knowing the existence or having any knowledge as to the existence of these homes i.e. 94 run away couples possessing no prior knowledge or awareness of the existence of State Protection Homes. In fact important to mention here is the fact that even the 6 couples who had previous knowledge gathered that knowledge via their advocates.

Unfortunately, a common observation was that out of all 100 couples, the maximum majority of the couples i.e. 94 who had no prior knowledge were not supplied this critical information by their advocates showing that simplistic procedural norms of protection were followed without sensitizing the harassed run away couple of the facilities available to them. This further exhibited a sense of indifference by the advocates whose primordial interest was fee-charging and not the paramount interest of the clients.

(iii) Comments and observations by couples who availed of the protection at any of the state protection homes.

S. No.	Response	Frequency
1.	Yes, stayed at protection home	1
2.	No, did not stay	5
Total		100

The above table depicts the responses of the couples whether they stayed at any of the established state District Protection Homes. Out of the six couples who said that they had some knowledge regarding the existence of these homes, only one run away couple admitted to having stayed at the established Protection Home. This run away couple even though hailing from Punjab had taken protection of the High Court at Chandigarh and because of the glaring threat to their lives from not just their families but the village community that they were confronting, they were directed to stay at the District Protection Home established in Sector 19, Chandigarh instead of their hometown district.

(iv) Facilities given at the state protection home.

S. No.	Facilities	Response
1.	Free lodging and meals upto 10 days	Yes
2.	Lodging and meals at a minimal cost beyond 10 days	Not applicable
3.	Overall safety and comfort	No

The above table reflects the responses of the run-away couple who stayed at the designated protection home in sector 19, Chandigarh which is actually operational as the Empowerment Centre, sector 19-B, run by Chandigarh Child and Women Development Corporation, as the protection centre for run-away couples who have married against the wishes of their parents. The couples are lodged on the second floor, where 4 rooms are allocated for them. The corporation is providing free legal aid, lodging and boarding for the initial 10 days, which is extendable after recommendation of the committee that is yet to be formed.

The responses can be gauged as follows that the run-away couple while post protection stayed there for two days as per orders of the court where in they were provided free meals in these two days. As per paper they were provided security by two security guards but in fact the guards would only check up on them once a day at night. They also warned them not to venture out. The couple reported that they felt extremely awkward at the place and used to hear weird and awry noises at night and reported that they confined themselves to the room designated to them but however were sure that the other rooms were being used by the guards who used to lock them at night. Over all they did not feel secure or comfortable and were glad when they were set free by the court to be on their own.

The relevance of the above mentioned questions concerning the protection homes gains all the more impetus when viewed in the purview of the data that was collected from the Registry branch of the High Court in the year 2017 wherein there were a total of 4,173 protection matters filed from various districts in Punjab before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. Out of these, there were only eight cases who were given protection order of staying at the state district protection homes in Punjab by the High Court. This shows that despite the massive number of protection matters being filed, there are few that make a prayer in the protection petition for protective stay at state protection homes. In the same context it becomes important to quote the detailed analysis of the state run protection homes in all districts of Punjab.

CONCLUSION:

To deal with the same and further emphasizing the magnitude of the importance of the establishment of protection homes, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Asha Vs State of Haryana (Civil Writ Petition, 2009) initially issued direction No. (x) issued earlier vide order dated 15.10.2010 to the State Legal Services Authority of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh to identify protection centres in each District and depute a counsel to visit the protection centres at least thrice a week so as to render legal assistance/counseling to such couples who desire it. Subsequently, the final decision was passed by the High Court dated, 25 july 2012 in the civil writ petition of 2009, wherein the court stated that All the runway couples were being provided security as and when they approached the Court. The Shelter Homes in both the States and Union Territory, Chandigarh were also available for them. Accordingly, directions were issued to both the States of Punjab and Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh to comply with the directions issued by this Court on 15.10.2010. In addition, further direction was further issued that at every District Headquarters instead of earmarking any particular place(s), the authorities shall keep available minimum two rooms in the Circuit Houses/PWD Rest Houses and shelter be provided to the newly wedded couples as and when orders are issued by the District Judge, Deputy Commissioner and Senior Superintendent of Police of the concerned district. It was made clear that to get protection, the runway couples can approach any of the District Judge in the States of Punjab and Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh and also Deputy Commissioner and Senior Superintendent of Police in all the districts of the above States and Union Territory, Chandigarh, irrespective of the place of their residence. If necessary, legal aid services shall be provided to the couples in need of shelter.

In Chandigarh, also as per directions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Chandigarh administration has declared the Empowerment Centre, sector 19-B, run by Chandigarh Child and Women Development Corporation, as the protection centre for run-away couples who have married against the wishes of their parents. The couples are lodged on the second floor, where 4 rooms are allocated for them. The corporation is providing free legal aid, lodging and boarding for the initial 10 days, which is extendable as per further orders.

The above verdict preceding the latest March 2018 judgment of the Supreme court only goes to further emphasize the dire need to protect the lives and liberties of run-away couples in such elopements and contested run away marriages. The imperative and pressing requirement by the executive and the judiciary alike however, is to tenaciously monitor and implement the guidelines. It has been several months before the Apex Court guidelines, but it has been over 5 years since the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s guidelines in Asha and Another Versus State of Haryana. Sadly, the state of security and protection provided to couples in the twin states of Punjab and Haryana still covets a long road ahead with couples still flocking to the High Court and no other institution, neither the District Court nor the Police seeking for affirmative protection. The state of the shelter homes/ District protection houses in Punjab feign a complete level of indifference, apathy and nonchalance with no facilities or services being made available to couples in run away marriages showing a blatant disregard to High Court Orders. Post the 2018 verdict in the Public Interest Litigation spearheaded by the NGO Shakti Vahini and hailing the thumping triumph of the Apex Court, there is certainly a stronger sight of ground reality by the Judiciary and a definite hope for fundamental human rights of individuals to not just be effectively exercised but intrinsically realized.After all, laws, norms and policies mark the commencement of every new social process wherein the law itself needs to change the nomenclature and identify these elopements as not run away but self-exercised choice based marriages.

REFERENCES:

1. Agrawal Prachi. Gender Role and Its Impact upon the Society. Research J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 3(2): April-June, 2012, 197-200.

2. Asha and Another Versus State of Haryana. Civil Writ Petition. 2009; 6717.

3. Chakravarti Uma. From fathers to husbands: of love, death and marriage in North India. InHonour: Crimes, Paradigms and Violence Against Women, Edited by Lynn Welchman and Sara Hossain. Zed Books, London. Pp. 308-331

4. Devi Veena. Overview on Universal Human Right. Int. J. Rev. and Res. Social Sci. 2(1): Jan. – Mar. 2014; 24-26.

5. Dogan Recep. Honour Killings in the UK communities: Adherence to Tradition and Resistance to change. Journal of Minority Muslim Affairs. 2013: 33(3); 401-417.

6. Inamdar Suvarna. Women and Human Rights. Int. J. Rev. and Res. Social Sci. 4(2): April - June, 2016; Page 77-79.

7. Kaur Rupinder. Surveillance and Privacy: A Ramification of Article 21. Int. J. Rev. and Res. Social Sci. 2018; 6(3):284-290.

8. Khaps can’t interfere if consenting adults marry. (2018, March 27). The Tribune. p. 1.

9. Kunwar Aditya Singh, Human Rights and Police Process. Research J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 3(4): October-December, 2012, 450-457.

10. Moral Judgements can never be proved by Evidence- A critical study. Int. J. Rev. and Res. Social Sci. 2(2): April-June 2014; Page 114-117.

11. National Crime Record Bureau: 288 Honour Killing cases reported since 2014: Government. 2017, August 2. The Tribune. 7.

12. Neral Apoorva. The Theories of Justice and its Correlation with Law. Research J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 4(2): April-June, 2013, 151-160.

13. Pardeep Singh and Another Versus State of Haryana. Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal). 2008: (3); 367.

14. S. Shubhang .Human Rights and Police. Research J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 3(1): Jan- March, 2012, 65-67

15. SahuAlekh Kumar and KhanAlim Abdul. Policies and practices of religious and other communities. Int. J. Rev. and Res. Social Sci. 2(2): April-June 2014; Page105-107.

16. Shukla Rajesh. Liberation of Women in the Indian Context. Int. J. Rev. and Res. Social Sci. 1(2): Oct. - Dec. 2013; 45-47.

17. Thakur Nath Dwijendra. Feminism and Women Movement in India. Research J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 3(4): October-December, 2012, 458-464.

Received on 12.03.2019 Modified on 16.04.2019

Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2019; 10(2):325-332.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828.2019.00058.5