Dismissed

Neelam Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2019WRIC/23511/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a live-in couple seeking protection from harassment and violence by the respondent relative. The High Court relied on Shafin Jahan to uphold the right to choose a partner, directed the petitioners to approach the senior superintendent of police, Azamgarh, for ventilaing their grievance and for the said authority to look into the matter personally and do the needful in acco

What the court decided

AI extract

Neelam Yadav and Another Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23511 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Neelam Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shabana Nizam,Ran Vijay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶5

This writ petition, inter alia, has been filed for the following relief:

¶6

" I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the authority not to harass the petitioners and interfere in the peaceful living in relationship of the petitioners.

¶7

II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authority to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner as enshrined under the Constitution of India."

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that although the Petitioner No. 1 is not married to Petitioner No. 2 but she is having live-inrelationship with him. He further stated that on account of the fact that the Petitioner No. 1 is living with the Petitioner No. 2, Respondent No. 4 is harassing and resorting to violence, and the petitioners apprehend danger to their life.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. & ors., 2018 SCC Online SC 343.

¶10

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners

¶11

and learned Standing Counsel.

¶12

In Shafin Jahan (supra) the Supreme Court has held as under:

¶13

"75. ...The choice of a partner whether within or outside marriage lies within the exclusive domain of each individual. Intimacies of marriage lie within a core zone of privacy, which is inviolable. The absolute right of an individual to choose a life partner is not in the least affected by matters of faith. The Constitution guarantees to each individual the right freely to practise, profess and propagate religion. Choices of faith and belief as indeed choices in matters of marriage lie within an area where individual autonomy is supreme. The law prescribes conditions for a valid marriage. It provides remedies when relationships run aground. Neither the State nor the law can dictate a choice of partners or limit the free ability of every person to decide on these matters. They form the essence of personal liberty under the Constitution...."

¶14

The said judgment has been followed by the Supreme Court in Nandakumar & anr. v. The State of Kerala & ors., Criminal Appeal No. 597 of 2018, dated 20th April, 2018, wherein the Court has quoted with approval the judgment of Shafin Jahan (supra).

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that in case the petitioners approach the Senior Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh to ventilate their grievance, it is expected from the said authority that it shall look into the matter personally and do the needful in accordance with law.

¶16

With the above observation, this writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 26.7.2019

¶18

vinay

Neelam Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Neelam Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saraswati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

New Metro Hospital and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ranveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Bhole Shanker Verma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arvind Pathak Vs State of U P and 6 Others

Nisha Vs State of U P and 5 Others