age is not a restriction for love marriages.

5. The petitioners took decision to get married out of their own free will and consent.

. . . 

7. According to the petitioner no.1 (child-victim), she was regularly beaten by her parents at home. The parent tried to forcibly marry her to someone else even though she was in love with the petitioner No.2.

. . .

11. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner No.1 is pregnant and the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are expecting a child together. He further draws my attention to the statement under Section 164 Cr.PC of the petitioner No.1, wherein the petitioner No.1/ prosecutrix has alleged that her mother used to beat her at home and she used to lock the prosecutrix inside the house.

12. Petitioner No.1 eloped with the petitioner No.2 out of her own free will and consent and got married on 11.03.2022

. . . 

20 .. , in the present case, it is not a case of exploitation but a case where the petitioners were in love, got married according to the Muslim laws, and thereafter, had physical relationships.

21. It is also clear from the status report that the parties were living with each other husband and wife. There is no averment that they had sexual intercourse prior to their marriage. In fact, the status report is suggestive of the fact that they were married on 11.03.2022, and thereafter, established physical relationship

23. Hence, the petitioners being lawfully wedded to each other cannot be denied the company of the each other which is the essence of the marriage. If the petitioners are separated, it will only cause more trauma to the petitioner no.1 and her unborn child. The aim of the state here is to protect the best interest of Petitioner no.1. If the petitioner has wilfully consented to the marriage and is happy, the state is no one to enter private space of the petitioner and separate the couple. The doing of the same will tantamount to encroachment of personal space by the state