Allowed

Smt. Anjali Varma and Another v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2022WRIC/22437/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court protected two adult petitioners from family interference, allowing them to live together as per their free will. The order granted liberty to live peacefully unless documents are fraudulent and directed police protection if disturbed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to live freely; protection directed from Superintendent of Police; condition to register marriage.

Smt. Anjali Varma and Another Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22437 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Anjali Varma And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajeet Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,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 and their marriage was solemnized on 18.07.2022. It is stated that for the said reason, the private respondent and their 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 petitioners have brought on record their AADHAR Cards; wherein, the date of birth of the petitioner no. 1 is shown as 30.04.2003 and that of petitioner no. 2 as 02.04.1999. Thus, it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major.

¶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 their 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 - respondents.

¶10

In view of the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to the 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.

¶11

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 others , (1976) 3 SCC 234; Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and another , (2006) 5 SCC 475; and Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT

¶12

of Delhi) , (2011) 6 SCC 396, which have consistently been followed by the Supreme Court and 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:

¶13

"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."

¶14

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 concerned, with a copy of this order, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners.

¶15

A liberty is granted to the private respondent that if the documents brought on the record are fabricated or forged, it will be open for the respondent to file a recall application for recall of this order.

¶16

The petitioners undertake to get their marriage registered under "Uttar Pradesh Marriages Registration Rules, 2017" 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.

¶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 disposed of.

¶19

Order Date :- 6.8.2022 Amit Mishra

¶20

Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2022.08.06 12:30:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Anjali Varma and Another v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anjali Varma 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

Ram Gopal Vs Smt. Padmawati

Baboo and Others Vs BUNDUand Others

Narendra Singh and Others Vs Manohar Singh and Others

Sahiba and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Amanath Patel and Another Vs M/S Shakti Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Smt.Aishun Nisha @ Nisha Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others