Disposed

Nirmal Kumari and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Oct 2021WRIC/24325/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge disposed of a writ petition seeking police protection for adult petitioners threatened by relatives to prevent marriage registration. The court relied on a Division Bench precedent, directed the District Superintendent of Police to ensure safety, and mandated marriage registration within two months, clarifying the order did not validate the marriage.

What did the court decide?

Ordered police protection; directed marriage registration by the officer; petitioner to approach Senior Superintendent of Police if threats continue.

Nirmal Kumari and Another Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24325 of 2021 Petitioner :- Nirmal Kumari And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Archana Singh,Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶5

The petitioners assert that they have both attained the age of majority. They claim to have got married of their free will and with mutual consent. The marriage of both the petitioners is their first.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the petitioners have applied for online registration of their marriage before the Marriage Registration Officer, District- Aligarh. However, in view of the threats extended by respondent No. 4 and his adherents, they are not able to get the registration done and they fear for their lives. They sought protection from police authorities, which was denied. Hence, the writ petition.

¶7

A similar petition had engaged the attention of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Raj Kumari and another Vs. State of U.P. and others registered as Writ-C No.7305 of 2013. The judgement rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Raj Kumari (supra) on 8.2.2017 will guide the decision in this case. For ease of reference, the order of Division Bench of this Court is extracted hereunder:

¶8

"Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

¶9

Petitioners claim to be of marriageable age on the relevant date and that they have married each other of their own freewill. Both the petitioners claim to be illiterate and hence they have not annexed any documentary proof of age. In case of necessity, the concerned police officer or the

¶10

Magistrate shall get the age of petitioners verified in accordance with law.

¶11

This case is not different from large number of similar cases coming to this Court wherein young girl and boy claim to be adults and raise a grievance that they have married or are living with each other of their own freewill and for that, they are being threatened and harassed by parents of one or other party generally in connivance with or with support of local police.

¶12

In cases where criminal case is lodged by parents of girl alleging that she is a minor or she has been kidnapped for immoral purposes, Police has a duty to investigate the case seriously, so that no crime is committed against a young girl, but in other situation, where the girl is adult and has chosen to live as wife with another adult of her own freewill, the Police is required to give due protection and ensure that no harm is caused to such young couple only because the parents do not approve the decision of their children to marry as per their choice although the children have become adults.

¶13

Disposal of writ petition in such cases may not be construed as grant of certificate by this Court that the alleged marriage is valid and in accordance with law, but nonetheless where girl and boy are adults and they are living together of their own freewill, the Police must give due protection after making enquiry in respect of claim of their age. Once the girl and boy are found to be adults, it is the duty of the Police as well as the Civil Society to ensure that they are not put to fear of their lives or liberty.

¶14

In the present case, both the petitioners have claimed to be adults and married to each other of their own freewill. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with liberty to petitioners to approach the concerned Superintendent of Police or Senior Superintendent of Police with a certified copy of this order, so that petitioners are not threatened or tortured by any person, even if they happen to be the parents of petitioners, against law."

¶15

The petitioners are willing to get their marriage registered before the Marriage Registration Officer, Aligarh and undertake to get it registered within a period of two months. Both the petitioners as well as the Marriage Registration Officer, Aligarh shall make all efforts to register the marriage within a period of two months as per law.

¶16

In case, the respondent No. 4 or his adherents are threatening the petitioners or preventing them from getting their marriage registered, it is open to the petitioners to make an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, District- Bulandshahar and cooperate with the authorities. The Senior Superintendent of

¶17

Police, Bulandshahar is directed to consider the same and also take action in terms of the judgement of this Court rendered in the case of Smt. Raj Kumari (supra).

¶18

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶19

It is clarified that this order does not legitimate the marriage of the petitioner nor is it a judicial pronouncement on the sanctity of the relationship.

¶20

Order Date :- 5.10.2021 Pravin

Nirmal Kumari and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Kumari 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

Jayayuddin Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Saheb Ram Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat and Another

Ambedkar Rao and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Maya Devi Vs State of U.P. and 15 Others

Deepu Soni Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others