Partly allowed

Poonam Sikdar and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2019WRIC/12709/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted protection to two major adults living together against threats from family members, citing Supreme Court precedents. The order is conditional, requiring marriage registration within two months, otherwise the protection is vacated, while explicitly not adjudicating the marriage's validity.

What did the court decide?

Authorized Second Respondent to provide protection; liberty granted to recall if documents are forged; marriage to be registered within two months.

Poonam Sikdar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12709 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Poonam Sikdar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saif Ali Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Saif Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Deepak Kumar Srivastava, State Law Officer.

¶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

The petitioners claim that they are adults and living together out of their own freewill. It is stated that for the said reason, the private respondent 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.

¶9

In support of their age, the petitioner no. 1 has brought on record her Adhar Card and petitioner no. 2 has brought on record his Pass Port, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner no. 1 is shown as 28.02.1993 and that of petitioner no. 2 as 10.10.1988. Thus, it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major. They have also brought on record the complete online application for registration of their marriage.

¶10

The petitioners have averred in the writ petition that they are living as wife and husband. It is stated that they have apprehension that private respondent can eliminate them for the honour of his family. In case this Court does not grant them protection, their lives may be endangered.

¶11

In view of the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to private 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.

¶12

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

¶13

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 others, 2013 (9) ADJ 534. The Supreme Court in Gian Devi (supra) has held as under:

¶14

"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."

¶15

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, Prayagraj (Allahabad) i.e. the second respondent, with a certified copy of this order, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners.

¶16

A liberty is granted to the private 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.

¶17

The petitioners undertake to get their marriage registered within a period of two months.

¶18

If the petitioners could not get their marriage registered within the stipulated period herein above, the protection granted under this order shall stand automatically vacated.

¶19

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.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs.

¶21

Order Date :- 18.4.2019 Ishan

Poonam Sikdar and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poonam Sikdar and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Raj Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramesh and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Ram Lakhan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Hemlata and Another Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Arti Kumari and Another Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Shri Krishna Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others