Allowed

Garima Singh and Another v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2022WRIC/18459/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking writ against harassment regarding their live-in relationship. Court granted protection against interference by third parties, relying on prima facie majority, without final opinion on age.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to ensure petitioners are not subjected to harassment by respondent no. 4 or any other person in connection with their relationship.

Garima Singh and Another Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18459 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Garima Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Padmaker Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

The petitioners claim that they are in love with each other.

¶7

The case of the petitioners is that both of them are major. It is alleged that date of birth of petitioner no. 1, as per High School mark-sheet is 10.04.1997 and that of petitioner no. 2 as per High School mark sheet is 16.06.1990 and thus, they are 25 and 32 years of age, respectively.

¶8

It is categorically stated in the petition that the petitioners are living together out of their sweet will without any pressure from any one. Petitioner no. 2 is doing business and is earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Respondent no. 4 after coming to know that the petitioners are staying under one roof in live-inrelationship, is harassing them.

¶9

The petitioners claim that they have right of choice of their partner. Any interference with their personal relationship is a serious encroachment upon their right to freedom of choice.

¶10

In the aforesaid background, the petitioners have filed the instant petition praying for a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful life in any manner whatsoever.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Staterespondents could not dispute that in case the petitioners are major they have right of choice of their partner irrespective of their religious inclination.

¶12

Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of with direction to the second respondent to ensure that the petitioners are not subjected to any harassment by respondent no. 4 or by any other person in connection with their relationship with each other. This order will, however, not be taken to mean that this Court has expressed any final opinion regarding the age of the

¶13

petitioners as the findings are only prima facie in nature for the purposes of deciding the present controversy.

¶14

It is clarified that in case there is any F.I.R. registered against any of the petitioners, the instant order will not come in way of investigation.

¶15

(Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 8.7.2022 SL

¶16

Digitally signed by SHYAM LAL Date: 2022.07.08 14:13:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Garima Singh and Another v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Garima Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mamta Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mrs. Surekha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dabbu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Shree Sai Trading Company Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Sunita Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dr. Vineet Garg Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and 6 Others