Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 966 (ALL)

Rinki Kumari v. State of U. P.

2020-06-17

VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA

body2020
JUDGMENT : VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State of U.P. 3. Although the Stamp Reporter has reported certain defects in the petition, however, same has been produced before this Court in view of the order of this Court dated 30.5.2020. In view of the scheme during lockdown framed by this Court, there is a declaration by the learned counsel for the petitioner in accordance with the scheme at page 25 of the petition. Similar declaration has been filed in the supplementary affidavit also, which appears to be in accordance with the scheme of this Court. 4. The petitioners as usual are claiming protection as they have married of their own free will against the wishes of their parents/relatives. 5. The averments in the petition are supported by the joint affidavit of the petitioners. 6. In support of their age, petitioner no. 1 brought on record her AADHAR Card and PAN Card wherein the date of birth of is shown to be 1.1.2000 and that of petitioner No. 2 brought on record his AADHAR Card and PAN Card, wherein date of birth is shown as 5.8.1995. Thus, it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioners have already applied for registration of their marriage. 8. Learned Standing Counsel states that as per the Government Order dated 31.8.2019, the petitioners may approach the police and the requisite protection shall be given to them. 9. Thus, it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioners have already applied for registration of their marriage. 8. Learned Standing Counsel states that as per the Government Order dated 31.8.2019, the petitioners may approach the police and the requisite protection shall be given to them. 9. In view of legal position which has been summed up in the case of 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 wanted or involved in any case in connection with the above marriage or living together as they allegedly have already applied for registration of the marriage in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Marriage Registration Rules, 2017 as registration of marriage is compulsory vide decisions of the Supreme Court report in Smt. Seema vs. Ashwani Kumar, (2006) 2 SCC 578 : (2008) 1 SCC 180 and in case they fail in registration of their marriage, the protection herein above would cease to operate. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. However, this order would not come in way of investigation, if any, pending before the police authorities. 13. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly with above observations.