Allowed

Smt. Sushma Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2018WRIC/31011/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed respondents not to interfere with the petitioners' married life and protected their lives and liberty. It held that major adults living together of their free will cannot have their choice substituted by relatives. Protection was granted via the Senior Superintendent of Police, while marriage validity was reserved for later adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; petitioners granted protection to live peacefully; Respondent No. 4 permitted to recall order if documents are fabricated.

Smt. Sushma Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31011 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Sushma Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mata Pher 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 respondent no. 4 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

It is further stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.1 personally went to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur and gave an application dated 2.9.2018.

¶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 respondent no. 4 can eliminate them for the honour of his family. In case this Court does not grant them protection, their lives may be endangered.

¶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 respondent no. 4. 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 Senior Superintendent of Police- Saharanpur, with a certified copy of this order, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners.

¶14

A liberty is granted to the respondent no. 4 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 allowed. No order as to costs.

¶17

Order Date :- 12.9.2018 Mukesh

Smt. Sushma Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sushma 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

Ajjan Khan Vs State of U.P. and Others

Suraj Singh Vs the State of U.P. Thru Secy. and 3 Others

Yashwant Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Smt. Rubi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

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