Partly allowed

Reshma Bano and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2021WRIC/1623/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by adults living together seeking protection from family threats. Court held that adults have liberty to live together if major and living by free will. Ordered marriage registration within two months; protection vacated if not complied with. Petition partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Protection granted; liberty to live together affirmed; marriage to be registered within two months.

Reshma Bano and Another Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1623 of 2021 Petitioner :- Reshma Bano And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarveshwari Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶3

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶4

Heard Sri Sarveshwari Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the State.

¶5

Present petition has been filed by the petitioners claiming protection of their lives and liberty as they have married of their own free will and are adults and are living together. The averments made in the petition are supported by the joint affidavits of the petitioners. Further, it is stated that private respondent and other family members have got annoyed and there is serious danger to the lives of the petitioners as they are being threatened and harassed.

¶6

In support of their age, petitioner no.1 has brought on record her AADHAR Card, wherein her date of birth is shown as 18.04.1999 and petitioner no.2 has brought on record his AADHAR Card, wherein his date of birth is shown as 05.06.1989. Thus, it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major.

¶7

It is further stated that the petitioners have already applied for registration of their marriage.

¶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 private respondent can eliminate them for the honour of her family. In case, this Court does not grant them protection, their lives may be endangered.

¶9

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.

¶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

¶11

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:

¶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 Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur i.e. respondent no.2, with a copy of this order downloaded from the website of the High Court, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners.

¶14

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.

¶15

As registration of marriage is compulsory vide decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2006) 2 SCC 578 and (2008) 1 SCC 180 Seema (Smt.) Vs. Ashwani Kumar , the petitioners undertake to get their marriage registered within a period of two months.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 5.8.2021//SK Goswami

Reshma Bano and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reshma Bano 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

Vibhav Nath and 7 Others Vs State of U P and 7 Others

C/M Koch Sahkari Kray Vikray Samiti Limited and Another Vs Controlling Authority and Another

Tara Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Turki College of Education Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Triveni Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

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