Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2210 (ALL)

Sita Yadav v. State of U. P.

2016-06-17

P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2016
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents not to interfere in their married life and also for protection of their lives and liberty. 2. The petitioners claim that they are adults and they have married with each other out of their own freewill. It is stated that for the said reason, respondent no. 4 and her other family members have got annoyed and there is serious danger to the lives of the petitioners as they are being threatened and harassed. 3. support of proof of their age, the petitioners have brought on record Adhar Card and Scholar"s Register and Transfer Certificate of petitioner no. 1 wherein her date of birth is recorded as 10.7.1994. Driving licence of petitioner no. 2 has also been brought on record wherein his date of birth is recorded as 10.10.1992. Thus, it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major. They have also produced their originals of the aforesaid documents which are returned to them. 4. Both the petitioners are present in the Court and are identified by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that they are living as wife and husband and they have apprehension that the respondents can adopt coercive method against them. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State functionaries. In view of the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to the fourth respondent. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage in terms of the Rules of the Court. 6. The Supreme Court in a long line of decisions has settled the law that where a boy and a girl are major and they are living with their free will, then, nobody including their parents, has authority to interfere with their living together. 6. The Supreme Court in a long line of decisions has settled the law that where a boy and a girl are major and they are living with their free will, then, nobody including their parents, has authority to interfere with their living together. Reference may be made to the judgements of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Devi v. The Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi and others, (1976) 3 SCC 234 , Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2006) 5 SCC 475 ; Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396 , which have consistently been followed by the Supreme Court and this Court, as well as of this Court in Deepika and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2014 All 1 ; 2013 (9) A.D.J. 534 . 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioners are at liberty to live together and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living. In case any disturbance is caused in the peaceful living of the petitioners, the petitioners shall approach the second respondent-S.S.P., Agra, with a certified copy of this order, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners. 8. A liberty is granted to the fourth respondent that if the documents brought on the record are fabricated or forged, it will be open to him to file a recall application for recall of this order. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated upon the alleged marriage of the petitioners and this order in no way expresses opinion about the validity of their marriage and genuineness of their marriage certificate, if any. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.