Disposed

Irshad and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Allahabad HC26 Aug 2020WRIC/9946/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of a writ petition filed by a married couple seeking protection from interference, harassment, and arrest by the respondents. Relying on Lata Singh, the court held that married adults cannot be harassed for inter-caste marriages. The petition was disposed of on fresh motion subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to respondents to file a recall in case averments in the petition are found incorrect; order vacates automatically if FIR is lodged.

Irshad and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9946 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Irshad And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Nandan Pandey,Sanjeev Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

¶6

This petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:-

¶7

"i. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 not to interfere in peaceful living of the petitioners as husband and wife.

¶8

ii. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents no to arrest the petitioners and not to conduct raid at the house of the petitioners."

¶9

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that both the petitioners are adults and are of marriageable age and have married of their own freewill and accord. The photocopies of the Aadhaar Card of the petitioners have been enclosed in support of their age proof which are enclosed as Annexure No. 1 and 2. It is stated that the a photocopy of the nikahnama of the marriage of the petitioners has also been enclosed as Annexure No. 3. It is alleged that the respondent no.4 and 5 are threatening and harassing the petitioners and also interfering in their peaceful matrimonial life.

¶10

Law is settled that it is the right of married couple to live peacefully without any interference in case they are major. The Supreme Court in Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 2522 has already issued following directions in para- 17 which reads as under:-

¶11

"The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when we have to be united to face the challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence, inter-caste marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying the caste system. However, disturbing news are coming from several parts of the country that young men and women who undergo inter-caste marriage, are threatened with violence, or violence is actually committed on them. In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or

¶12

harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or interreligious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter- religious marriage. We, therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple are not harassed by any one nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and any one who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law."

¶13

In view of the clear enunciation of law by the Supreme Court in the above matter, it is obligatory for the concerned authorities to ensure compliance of the above directions in view of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Above law has since been reiterated in Bhagwan Dass Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396 . In case petitioners face any genuine threat to their life and liberty, or they are harassed, contrary to law laid down in Lata Singh (supra), it shall be open for them to approach the Senior Superintendent of Police of the District concerned and furnish necessary details in that regard, like proof of their majority, marriage and alleged harassment etc., who shall take all steps as may be required in law to ensure that petitioners' life and liberty are not interfered with, keeping in view the directions issued in Lata Singh (supra). The filing of this petition or the order of its disposal, however, would not be treated as proof of marriage between the petitioners.

¶14

Since the writ petition is being decided at the stage of fresh motion itself and notice has not been issued to private respondent/s, as such, liberty is given to them to file a recall, in case any of the averments made in the writ petition are found to be incorrect, and this order shall stand automatically vacated, in case any First Information Report has been lodged in the matter.

¶15

Subject to the observations made above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 26.8.2020 A. V. Singh

¶17

Digitally signed by Justice Jayant Banerji Date: 2020.08.27 15:58:08 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Irshad and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irshad and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

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

Anar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satnam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Saroj Devi @ Sarojani Devi Vs Raksha Pal Singh and 2 Others

Vinod Kumar Maurya and 14 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shahjeb Vs State of U.P.

Yogendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. through Secretary, Revenue Department, Lucknow and 14 Others