Allowed

Smt. Raj Kumari and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Jun 2018CRLP/15306/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition and quashed an FIR under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. The court held that the adult petitioners were capable of taking their own decisions to marry and live together, and thus no offence was made out, relying on Article 21.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed and the FIR dated 4.06.2018 under Sections 363 and 366 IPC was quashed.

Smt. Raj Kumari and Another Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15306 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Raj Kumari And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dhananjay Pratap Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

This writ petition is directed against the FIR dated 04.06.2018 in Case Crime No.0124 of 2018 under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Madrak, District Aligarh.

¶6

Both the petitioner No.1 and 2 are personally present in the Court.

¶7

The allegation in the FIR are to the effect that the petitioners no.2 has enticed away petitioner no.1.

¶8

The averments in the writ petition, to the contrary, are that both the petitioners being major decided to marry and their marriage was performed at Sri Bala Ji Jyotish Temple, Panchkula, Haryana on 4.06.2018.

¶9

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate and have perused the record.

¶10

From the perusal of the record of the writ petition, we find that as per the Adhar card issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India, the date of birth of petitioner no.1 is recorded as 01.01.2000 and similarly in the Adhar card of the petitioner no.2, the date of birth recorded is 01.01.1997.

¶11

Thus both the petitioners nos.1 and 2 are major and, in our considered opinion, they are capable enough to take their own decisions. We have also perused the marriage certificate, from which, we find that both the petitioners nos.1 and 2 have already married on 4.06.2018 and they are living together as husband and wife ever since then.

¶12

We also find that a joint affidavit has been filed by the

¶13

petitioners nos.1 and 2 in support of the averments made in the writ petition.

¶14

Even otherwise, the Apex Court in the case of Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan K.M. & others reported in AIR 2018 SC 1933 has held that The right to marry a person of one's choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees the right to life and protects the abilities of each individuals to pursue a way of life or faith to which she or he seeks to adhere. The strength of the Constitution lies in the guarantee which it affords that each individual will have a protected entitlement in determining a choice of partner to share intimacies within or outside marriage. The exercise of jurisdiction of the superior courts, in the case of persons who are incapable of asserting a free will such as minors or persons of unsound mind, should not transgress into the area of determining the suitability of partners to a marital tie. That decision rests exclusively with the individuals themselves. Neither the State nor society can intrude into that domain.

¶15

In view of the above legal position, considering the material brought on record, we do not find that any offence is made out under Section 363, 366 IPC.

¶16

The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The FIR dated 4.06.2018 in Case Crime No.0124 of 2018 under Section 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Madrak, District Aligarh is hereby quashed.

¶17

The petitioner nos.1 and 2 are set at liberty to pursue their married life peacefully and the respondents are directed not to harass them in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

Order Date :- 15.6.2018 NSC

¶19

(Sunita Agarwal, J.)

¶20

(Ajit Kumar, J.)

Smt. Raj Kumari and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Raj Kumari and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pinkesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sonpal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Fakhre Alam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kajal Nishad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kavita and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Reetu @ Chinu Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others