Disposed

Neha and Another v. State of U P and 5 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jun 2018WRIC/20949/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking protection for two adult married petitioners against threats from parents. It directed police to ensure their peaceful living and safe travel, while clarifying the order does not validate the marriage nor protect against future criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Direction to police to provide protection for petitioners' peaceful living and safe travel to destination.

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

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20949 of 2018 Petitioner :- Neha And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Prakash Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶4

Vakalatnama has been filed today by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate on behalf of respondent No.4 which is taken on record.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

Both the petitioners are present in the Court and they have been identified by their learned counsel. Both the petitioners appear to be major.

¶7

It is stated that the petitioner nos.1 and 2 educated and they are major. The date of birth of petitioner No.1 is 06.12.1993 and the date of birth of petitioner No.2 is 10.03.1992 as per their High School marksheet, a copy of which have been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It is also stated that both the petitioners have married with each other on 03.09.2017. It is further stated that no FIR has been lodged against the petitioners till date and the petitioners have married with each other by their own free will.

¶8

The petitioners claim to be adult and married to each other of their own freewill, and for that they are being threatened and harassed.

¶9

In the case of Deepika and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (9) ADJ 534 , this Court having analysed the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as by this Court in the cases cited in the judgment, held that where a boy and a girl are major and they are living with their free will, then, nobody including their parents, has no authority to interfere with their living together.

¶10

In the said case the Court also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396, it is apt to extract relevant paragraphs 28 and 29 of the said judgment, which reads as under :-

¶11

"28. ..... Often young couples who fall in love have to seek shelter in the police lines or protection homes, to avoid the wrath of kangaroo courts. We have held in Lata Singh case that there is nothing "honourable" in "honour" killings, and they are nothing but barbaric and brutal murders by bigoted persons

¶12

with feudal minds. In our opinion honour killings, for whatever reason, come within the category of the rarest of rare cases deserving death punishment. It is time to stamp out these barbaric, feudal practices which are a slur on our nation. This is necessary as a deterrent for such outrageous, uncivilised behavior. All persons who are planning to perpetrate "honour" killings should know that the gallows await them.

¶13

29.Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Registrars General/ Registrars of all the High Courts who shall circulate the same to all the Judges of the Courts. The Registrars General/ Registrars of the High Courts will also circulate copies of the same to all the Sessions Judges/ Additional Sessions Judges in the States/Union Territories. Copies of the judgment shall also be sent to all the Chief Secretaries/ Home Secretaries/ Directors General of Police of all States/ Union Territories in the country. The Home Secretaries and Directors General of Police will circulate the same to all SSPs/SPs in the States/Union Territories for information."

¶14

In view of the above, the writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction that petitioners are at liberty to live together. 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 or Superintendent of Police with a certified copy of this order, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners.

¶15

However, this order in no way expresses opinion about the validity of their marriage. This order shall not protect the petitioners against any action or proceedings pursuant to any F.I.R. or complaint case against him/her/them.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the private respondents are chasing the petitioners and there is threat of life even inside and outside of the High Court, therefore, appropriate direction may be issued to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad for extending protection to both the petitioners so that they may proceed to their place of destination.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid statement, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad is directed to provide adequate security in Allahabad to both the petitioners so as to enable them to proceed to their place of destination.

¶18

Order Date :- 4.6.2018 Nitin Verma

Neha and Another v. State of U P and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neha and Another v. State of U P and 5 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

Murali Vs Brahma Nand and 6 Others

Phula Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate and 10 Others

Arun Kumar Verma Vs State of U P and 6 Others

Nathuram Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kalideen Mishra @ Jai Shankar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mazhar Ahmad and 13 Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others