Allowed

Smt. Pooja and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2022WRIC/18135/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that two major petitioners living by their free will cannot be interfered with by parents or others. The court directed police authorities to ensure their safety from harassment or violence, subject to any legal actions against the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent nos. 2 and 3 to ensure petitioners are not harassed, threatened or subjected to acts of violence by anyone.

Smt. Pooja and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18135 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Pooja And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ehtesham Akhtar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and perused the record.

¶6

Present petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the respondents not to interfere in live relationship of the petitioners. A further prayer is made to direct the respondents to provide the safety and security of the petitioners.

¶7

In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to respondent no.4 is dispensed with.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are major and want to marry each other of their own volition. It is respondents who are creating hindrance in the peaceful life of the petitioners. Based upon the instructions received from the petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that no First Information Report has been registered against the petitioners in this regard.

¶9

In Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another , 2006 (5) SCC 475 , the Apex Court has observed as under:-

¶10

"14. This case reveals a shocking state of affairs. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a major and was at all relevant times a major. Hence she is free to marry anyone she likes or live with anyone she likes. There is no bar to an inter-caste marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law. Hence, we cannot see what offence was committed by the petitioner, her husband or her husband's relatives.

¶11

.... This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a

¶12

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 inter-religious 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 intercaste 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 interreligious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple is not harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and anyone 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

Considering the aforesaid judgment of Lata Singh (supra) as also other judgments on the issue, this Court in the judgment dated 23.11.2020 passed in WRIT- C No. 11108 of 2020 (Kamini Devi And Another v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others) observed as under:-

¶14

"6. Apart from the same Hon'ble Apex 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 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: -

¶15

"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.

¶16

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."

¶17

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the petitioners are at liberty to live together and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living. As right to life is a fundamental right insured under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in which it is provided that no person shall be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty. In case any disturbance is caused in the peaceful living of the petitioners, the petitioners shall approach the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad i.e. the second-respondent, with self attested computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, who shall provide immediate protection to the

¶18

petitioners."

¶19

Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is finally disposed of with a direction to respondent nos.2 and 3 to ensure that the petitioners are not harassed, threatened or subjected to acts of violence by anyone, especially by respondent no.4 or at their instigation.

¶20

This order is subject to any action or proceedings instituted against the Petitioners in accordance with law.

¶21

In the event, any false averment has been made in this Writ Petition, the respondents will be at liberty to make an application for recall of this order.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations/directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶23

Order Date :- 6.9.2022 vkj

¶24

Digitally signed by VIJAY KRISHNA JAISWAL Date: 2022.09.07 10:58:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Pooja and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pooja 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maroof Jameel Vs Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Meerut and Ors.

Moh. Yunush Vs State of U.P. Thru. Sec. Home Co-Op Sec. Lko. and Others

Angnu Prasad Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Sita Devi Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Suhel Ahamd Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ravendra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Ors.