Disposed

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

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2018WRIC/28022/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought protection against threats by respondent no. 3 following their marriage. The Single Judge relied on a Division Bench precedent directing police to protect adult couples who marry of their own freewill against parental or others' opposition.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to approach Senior Superintendent of Police for protection against threats.

Smt. Pooja and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28022 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Pooja And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

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

¶5

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.

¶6

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

¶7

Their marriage provoked the opposition of respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 3 and his adherents threatened the petitioners. The petitioners approached the police authorities for protection. It was denied. Hence the writ petition.

¶8

A similar petition had engaged the attention of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Raj Kumari and another Vs. State of U.P. and others registered as Writ-C No.7305 of 2013. The judgement rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Raj Kumari (supra) on 8.2.2017 will guide the decision in this case. For ease of reference, the order of Division Bench of this Court is extracted 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 become adults.

¶13

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.

¶14

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. "

¶15

In case, the respondent No. 3 or his adherents are threatening the petitioners, it is open to the petitioners to make an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, District- Muzaffarnagar. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar 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) .

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 24.8.2018 Pravin

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pooja 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jyotsana Devi Vs Gautam Sen Gupta and 3 Others

Hridesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and Others

Chandra Jeet Yadav and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Srikrishna Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Sheraz Ahmad Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Smt. Gulafsha Khatoon @ Lovely and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others