Disposed

Joya @ Joya and Another v. the State of U.P. and 8 Others

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2022WRIC/24649/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court restrained police officials from harassing or threatening petitioners who are adults living together. Directing respondents to ensure their safety under Article 21 while preserving the State's right to initiate legal proceedings if false averments are later made.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondents 2 and 3 to protect petitioners from harassment, threats, or violence by Respondents 4 to 9 or their instigation.

Joya @ Joya and Another Vs the State of U.P. and 8… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24649 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Joya @ Joya And Another Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra,Giriraj Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing counsel.

¶6

Present petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the respondent no. 2 (Senior Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur) and respondent no. 3 (Station House Officer, Police StationChilkana, Saharanpur) to protect the life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to the petitioners and also sought the relief against the respondent nos. 4 to 9 not to interfere in the peaceful life ( live in relation ) of the petitioners in any manner.

¶7

In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to Respondent nos. 4 to 9 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

17. .... This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-

¶12

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 inter-caste 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

10. 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

¶18

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, Farrukhabad 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 petitioners."

¶19

Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is finally disposed of with a direction to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to ensure that the petitioners are not harassed, threatened or subjected to acts of violence by anyone, especially by respondent nos. 4 to 9 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 :- 29.8.2022 Nisha

¶24

(Vikas Budhwar,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by NISHA KUMARI Date: 2022.08.30 10:52:01 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Joya @ Joya and Another v. the State of U.P. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joya @ Joya and Another v. the State of U.P. and 8 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

Prakriyatmak Evam Vipran Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and Others

M/S Rakesh Kumar Vs U.P. Power Corpn. and Others

The Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Ltd. Thru V.K. Teotia Vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Secy. and Ors.

Prabhu Nath Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Awdesh Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Savit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others