Partly allowed

Smt. Praveenika Arya Alias Shama Parveen Khan and Another v. State of U.P. and 11 Others

Allahabad HC24 Mar 2022WRIC/2894/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner is a man and a woman living as husband and wife who sought direction not to interfere in their married life. The court allowed the writ partly, ruling that adults can live together freely without interference and granted protection against any disturbance.

What did the court decide?

Protect the petitioners from interference in their peaceful living and direct the Superintendent of Police to provide immediate protection if any disturbance is caused. A liberty is granted to the pri

Smt. Praveenika Arya Alias Shama Parveen… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 82

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2894 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Praveenika Arya Alias Shama Parveen Khan And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 11 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,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 petitioners have brought on record their certificate-cum-marksheets of High School Examination, 2006 and 2009 respectively, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner no. 1 is shown as 07.07.1992 and that of petitioner no. 2 as 10.08.1994. Thus, it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major. They have performed their marriage and their marriage has been registered under the provisions of "Uttar Pradesh Marriages Registration Rules, 2017". It is averred in the writ petition that till date no first information report has been lodged at any police station of Uttar Pradesh and the police has no right to adopt coercive process against the petitioners.

¶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 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:

¶11

" 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."

¶12

However, learned A.C.S.C. submits that the girl is Muslim and boy is Hindu by religion and there is no compliance of Section 8 & 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

¶13

In this regard learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners will move application of conversion of religion before the D.M. concerned within 10 days.

¶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, Deoria, i.e. the second respondent, with a certified 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 to him to file a recall application for recall of this order.

¶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

However, this order would not come in way of investigation, if any, pending before the police authorities and the law will take its own course.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs.

¶19

Order Date :- 24.3.2022

¶20

S.Verma

¶21

Digitally signed by SANDEEP KUMAR VERMA Date: 2022.03.24 15:39:40 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Praveenika Arya Alias Shama Parveen Khan and Another v. State of U.P. and 11 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Praveenika Arya Alias Shama Parveen Khan and Another v. State of U.P. and 11 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

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

Manisha Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rakesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shabana @ Seema and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

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