Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2251 (ALL)

Ritu v. State of U. P.

2023-10-04

SHIV SHANKER PRASAD

body2023
JUDGMENT : SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, J. 1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 not to harass the petitioners in any manner and not to interfere in the peaceful matrimonial life of the petitioners and also got the protection from private the respondent no. 4. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents and perused the material placed on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the petitioners have solemnized their marriage out of their free will and choice, driven by love affairs on 22.09.2023, at Arya Samaj, Govindpuri, Kakraitha, Sikandra, Agra, Agra as per the Hindu rites and rituals. They have also applied online for registration of their marriage. They have filed joint affidavit in support of their pleadings made in present writ petition. The date of birth of petitioner No. 1 is mentioned as 20.03.1996 and that of petitioner No. 2 is mentioned as 20.10.1996, in their respective High School Examination Marks-sheets. After marriage, they started living as husband and wife peacefully but respondent No. 4, the father of petitioner No. 1 is interfering in their peaceful married life. Petitioner No. 1 has moved an application before Police Commissioner, Agra on 26.09.2023, wherein she has sought protection for herself as well as petitioner No. 2 from respondent No. 4, but no relief has been obtained from them. Hence, present writ petition has been filed before this Court with above prayer. 4. 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 private 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. 5. In view of the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to private 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. 5. 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 cases of Gian Devi vs. The Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi and Others, (1976) 3 SCC 234 , Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2006) 5 SCC 475 and Bhagwan Dass vs. 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, 2013 (9) ADJ 534 . The Supreme Court in Gian Devi (supra) has held as under: “7.......Whatever may be the date of birth of the petitioner, the fact remains that she is at present more than 18 years of age. As the petitioner is sui juris no fetters can be placed upon her choice of the person with whom she is to stay, nor can any restriction be imposed regarding the place where she should stay. The court or the relatives of the petitioner can also not substitute their opinion or preference for that of the petitioner in such a matter.” 6. 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 Police Commissioner, Agra i.e., respondent no. 2, with a certified copy of this order, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners. 7. A liberty is granted to the private 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. 8. 2, with a certified copy of this order, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners. 7. A liberty is granted to the private 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. 8. The petitioners undertake to get their marriage registered within a period of two months. If the petitioners could not get their marriage registered within the stipulated period herein above, the protection granted under this order shall stand automatically vacated. 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. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.