Antima v. State Of Uttar Pradesh Thru. Secy. Home Govt. Of Uttar Pradesh Lko.
2024-07-08
NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, VIVEK CHAUDHARY
body2024
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to disturb and interfere in the matrimonial life of the petitioners and further not to harass the petitioners. 3. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner nos.1 and 2 are major and have married with each other by their own free will on 19.05.2024 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals in Arya Samaj Mandir, George Town, Prayagraj. The copy of the marriage certificate issued by the Arya Samaj Mandir has been annexed as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that on the date of their marriage i.e. on 19.05.2024, petitioners were of the age of majority. Petitioners have also proceeded for registration of their marriage before the Marriage Registration Authority and their online marriage registration form dated 19.05.02024 is annexed as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. It is stated that there is no F.I.R. lodged against petitioners as on date. Learned counsel for petitioners has invited our attention to the Aadhar Card of the petitioner no. 1 in which her date of birth is shown as 01.01.2002 and as per Aadhar Card, date of birth of petitioner no.2 is 01.01.2002. Both the documents are annexed as annexure No. 1 & 2 respectively to the writ petition. As the marriage was against the wishes of the family members, therefore, it is alleged that the Police is harassing them at their instance. 4. Considering the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation that if the petitioners are not wanted in any criminal case and they were of the marriageable age on the date of marriage then the police shall not unnecessarily harass them. It is, however, made clear that the Court has neither entered into nor adjudicated the age of the petitioners nor the validity of their alleged marriage.