Disposed

Smt. Karishma and Another v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Jun 2018WRIC/21035/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a married couple, permitting them to live together at their liberty and directing authorities to prevent interference. Protection against future criminal proceedings was explicitly denied.

What did the court decide?

Directed that the petitioners are at liberty to live together and authored to be given immediate protection from interference.

Smt. Karishma and Another Vs State of U P and 2… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21035 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Karishma And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sheetala Prasad Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

¶4

As per alleged photostat copies of High School Certificate filed as Annexure-1 and 2 to the writ petition, the date of birth of the petitioner No.1 is 13.3.1998 and the date of birth of the petitioner No.2 is 12.07.1996.

¶5

Both the petitioners are present in Court and have stated that they have married with each other out of their own free will on 24.5.2018.

¶6

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.

¶7

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 :-

¶8

"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 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.

¶9

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."

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

Order Date :- 6.6.2018/vkg

Smt. Karishma and Another v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Karishma 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

Karishma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Tulsa Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Raman Kumari and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

priyanka jaiswal Vs f.c. chaudhary, divisional manager and another

Alimunnisha and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others