Allowed

Sarita Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2018WRIC/19507/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Adults sought writ protection for living together against family interference. The court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that adults have the right to decide their living choice without parental interference and granted protection unless documents prove fabrication. The petition was allowed, directing police to provide immediate protection against future disturbances.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted liberty to live together peacefully; police directed to provide immediate protection against any disturbance.

Sarita Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19507 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Sarita Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents not to interfere in their married life and also for protection of their lives and liberty.

¶6

The petitioners claim that they are adults and living together out of their own freewill. It is stated that for the said reason, the fourth respondent and his other family members have got annoyed and there is serious danger to the lives of the petitioners as they are being threatened and harassed.

¶7

In support of their age, the petitioners have brought on record the documents. Thus, it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major.

¶8

The petitioners have averred in the writ petition that they are living as wife and husband. It is stated that they have apprehension that the fourth respondent can eliminate them for the honour of his family. In case this Court does not grant them protection, their lives are in serious danger.

¶9

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 the fourth 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.

¶10

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 v. The Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi and others, (1976) 3 SCC 234; Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2006) 5 SCC 475 ; and Bhagwan Dass v. 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 v. State of U.P. and

¶11

others, 2013 (9) ADJ 534 . The Supreme Court in Gian Devi (supra) has held as under:

¶12

" 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 ."

¶13

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 concerned Senior Superintendent of Police/ Superintendent of Police, with a certified copy of this order, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners.

¶14

A liberty is granted to the fourth 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.

¶15

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 and genuineness of their marriage certificate, if any.

¶16

The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

¶17

Order Date :- 1.8.2018 Irshad

Sarita Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarita Devi 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

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

Dwarika Vs State of U.P. and Others

Karam Jeet Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Pooja and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Shiv Prakash Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others