Disposed

Naziya @ Naziya Khatoon and Another v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Aug 2018WRIC/26637/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court granted protection to two major petitioners against interference in their married life. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, it held adults are sui juris and liberty to live together. The police are directed to provide immediate protection if disturbed. The marriage's validity was explicitly left unadjudicated.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Superintendent of Police to provide immediate protection to the petitioners if their peaceful living is disturbed; liberty to fourth respondent to recall order if documents are forged.

Naziya @ Naziya Khatoon and Another Vs State of U… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26637 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Naziya @ Naziya Khatoon And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Srivastava,Phool Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶6

It is stated at the bar by Shri Amit Kumar Srivastava that he has filed supplementary affidavit. The office unfortunately is not able to locate the same. Copy is already given to the counsel for the State. The certificate of registration of marriage is filed along with the initial affidavit.

¶7

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.

¶8

It is stated that both petitioners are major and they have solemnized their marriage out of their own sweet and free will. 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 judgments 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 Das v. State of (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 others, 2013 (9) ADJ 534. The Supreme Court in Gian Devi

¶11

(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 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 Superintendent of Police, Sambhal , i.e., the second respondent , 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

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of . No order as to cost.

¶17

Order Date :- 14.8.2018 Abhishek

Naziya @ Naziya Khatoon and Another v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naziya @ Naziya Khatoon 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

Mohammad Mikail Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Ashok Kumar Sahu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U P and 2 Others

U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs State of U.P. and Others

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

Smt. Radhika Arya @ Farana and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others