Allowed

Dipika and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2021WRIC/817/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes parental interference with two adults living together based on their free will. The court grants protection via the Superintendent of Police, orders marriage registration within two months, and clarifies it does not adjudicate the marriage's validity.

What did the court decide?

Directed Superintendent of Police to provide immediate protection; liberty granted to private respondent to recall if documents are forged; petitioners to register marriage within two months.

Dipika and Another Vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 37

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 817 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Dipika And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

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.

¶6

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.

¶7

In support of their age, the petitioner no. 1 has brought on record her certificate/mark-sheet of High School Examination, and petitioner no. 2 has brought on record his High School Marks Sheet/certificate, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner no. 1 is shown as 12.8.1998 and that of petitioner no. 2 as 16.5.1999. 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.

¶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 his family. In case this Court does not grant them protection, their lives may be endangered.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State functionaries. 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 Gian Devi v. The Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi and

¶11

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, Bijnor i.e. the second respondent, with a certified copy/computerized copy of this order, 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

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

¶16

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.

¶17

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶18

Order Date :- 19.1.2021 Akbar

Dipika and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipika 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

Yadvendra Mani Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Kamar Talak and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raghavendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Shyam Babu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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