Allowed

Preeti and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2018WRIC/14123/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioners sought protection from threats following their marriage. The Single Judge, relying on a Division Bench judgment, directed the Senior Superintendent of Police to ensure the petitioners' safety and prevent harassment by parents, based on their claim of adulthood and free will.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; Senior Superintendent of Police, District Bareilly directed to consider application by petitioners and ensure protection against threats based on the cited judgment.

Preeti and Another Vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14123 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Preeti And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Syed Wajid Ali,Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Syed Wajid Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

The petitioners claim to have attained the age of majority. They further claim to have got married. The petitioners have submitted a joint affidavit in support of the writ petition.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the marriage of the petitioners has been duly registered by the Marriage Registration Officer, District- Bareilly . The marriage registration certificate has been annexed in the writ petition.

¶8

Similar petitions has engaged the attention of the Division Bench of this Court. The judgement rendered by the Division Bench of this Court on 8.2.2017 in Writ-C No.7305 of 2013, ( Smt. Raj Kumari and another Vs. State of U.P. and others ), will guide the decision in this case. For ease of reference, the order of Division Bench of this Court is indicated hereunder:

¶9

"Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

¶10

Petitioners claim to be of marriageable age on the relevant date and that they have married each other of their own freewill. Both the petitioners claim to be illiterate and hence they have not annexed any documentary proof of age. In case of necessity, the concerned police officer or the Magistrate shall get the age of petitioners verified in accordance with law.

¶11

This case is not different from large number of similar cases coming to this Court wherein young girl and boy claim to be adults and raise a grievance that they have married or are living with each other of their own freewill and for that, they are being threatened and harassed by parents of one or other party generally in connivance with or with support of local police.

¶12

In cases where criminal case is lodged by parents of girl alleging that she is a minor or she has been kidnapped for immoral purposes, Police has a duty to investigate the case seriously, so that no crime is committed against a young girl, but in other situation, where the girl is adult and has chosen to live as wife with another adult of her own freewill, the Police is required to give due protection and ensure that no harm is caused to such young couple only because the parents do not approve the decision of their children to marry as per their choice although the children have

¶13

become adults.

¶14

Disposal of writ petition in such cases may not be construed as grant of certificate by this Court that the alleged marriage is valid and in accordance with law, but nonetheless where girl and boy are adults and they are living together of their own freewill, the Police must give due protection after making enquiry in respect of claim of their age. Once the girl and boy are found to be adults, it is the duty of the Police as well as the Civil Society to ensure that they are not put to fear of their lives or liberty.

¶15

In the present case, both the petitioners have claimed to be adults and married to each other of their own freewill. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with liberty to petitioners to approach the concerned Superintendent of Police or Senior Superintendent of Police with a certified copy of this order, so that petitioners are not threatened or tortured by any person, even if they happen to be the parents of petitioners, against law. "

¶16

In case, the respondent No. 4 or his adherents are threatening the petitioners, it is open to the petitioners to make an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, DistrictBareilly. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly is directed to consider the same expeditiously and also take action in terms of the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Smt. Raj Kumari (supra).

¶17

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶18

Order Date :- 18.4.2018 Ravi Prakash

Preeti and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Preeti and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bashant Kashyap and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Rakhi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shamshad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Yogendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kailash Nath Verma Vs Joint Commissioner (Food) Allahabad Mandal and 2 Others