Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 4092 (ALL)

Pooja v. State of U. P.

2015-12-21

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel appearing for the State of U.P. 2. The petitioners as usual are claiming protection as they have married of their own free will against the wishes of their parents/relatives. 3. The averments in the petition are supported by joint affidavit of the petitioners. 4. The petitioner no.1 is of marriageable age as per High School mark sheet/certificate (s). 5. In view of legal position which has been summed up in the case of Smt. Pooja and another Vs. State of U.P. and others 2013 (6) ADJ 225 without expressing any opinion about the marriageable age of both the petitioners, validity of their marriage or the genuineness of the marriage certificate, if any, produced, or the change of their religion, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned court of magistrate/police authorities/Senior Superintendent of Police and to appraise any of these authorities of the disturbance by outsiders in their married life and in case it is so done, the police authorities would ensure that they are not put to any threat or torture and their married life is not disturbed provided they are prima facie found to be of marriageable age and further that they are not wanted or involved in any case in connection with the above marriage or living together and further that they apply for registration of the marriage in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 1973/The Special Marriage Act, 1954 within a period of one month from today, as registration of marriage is compulsory vide decisions of the Supreme Court reported in (2006) 2 SCC 578 and (2008) 1 SCC 180 Seema (Smt) Vs. Ashwani Kumar and in case they fail to apply for registration of their marriage, the protection herein above would cease to operate. 6. The filing of this petition or the order of its disposal would not be treated as proof of marriage between the petitioners which would be subject to declaration of their marriageable status by the court of competent jurisdiction or upon the registration of their marriage with the competent authority in accordance with law. 7. 6. The filing of this petition or the order of its disposal would not be treated as proof of marriage between the petitioners which would be subject to declaration of their marriageable status by the court of competent jurisdiction or upon the registration of their marriage with the competent authority in accordance with law. 7. Since the petition is being disposed of in limine, any person aggrieved by it is at liberty to apply for its recall, if the order has been obtained by suppression or concealment of facts or on false averments. 8. However, this order would not come in way of investigation, if any, pending before the police authorities. 9. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly with above observations.