Partly allowed

Smt. Saloni Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Apr 2023WRIC/10238/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed police to protect major petitioners living together as husband and wife from parental interference under Article 21, granting protection conditional upon marriage registration within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondents 2 and 3 to protect petitioners' life and liberty and to Respondent 4 to refrain from interfering in their peaceful life.

Smt. Saloni Sharma and Another Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 89

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10238 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Saloni Sharma And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yakub Ali Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Yakub Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Standing Counsel for the for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶6

Present Writ Petition has been filed inter-alia for the following relief:-

¶7

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents No. 2 and 3 to protect and safe-guard the life and liberty of the petitioners as well as directing the respondent no.4 to not to interfere in the peaceful life of the petitioners without any authority of law as such they are living as husband and wife.

¶8

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding and directing to the respondent no. 2 and 3 not to take any coercive action against the petitioners under the illegal influence of the respondent no.4 without any authority of law."

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are major, aged about 19 years and 23 years, in support of which they have filed their date of birth certificate and they are living together out of their own free and sweet will but the respondent no. 4, i.e., father of the petitioner no. 1/ girl is annoyed. They have solemnized marriage on 23.3.2023 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Prayagraj and applied the application for marriage registration on 23.03.2023 for registration of their marriage. The respondent no. 4 and family members of petitioner no. 1 raised serious objection and being annoyed they are giving threat to implicate them falsely in a criminal case and the police authority are not helping the petitioners to protect their constitutional right of life and liberty.

¶10

The petitioners approached the authorities but they have not been given any protection. Petitioner no. 2 is earning Rs. 12,000/- per month by doing private job. It is further submitted that no first information report has been lodged against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the life of the petitioners is in danger.

¶11

It is settled 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. (vide Gian Devi v. The Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi and others, (1976) 3 SCC 234; Lata Singh v. State of U.P.

¶12

and another, (2006) 5 SCC 475; and Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396, 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

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner are major 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 Senior 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 respondent no. 4 that if the documents brought on the record are fabricated or forged, it will be open to him to file a recall application for recalling this order.

¶16

The petitioners undertake to get their marriage registered within a period of two months.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 6.4.2023

¶21

T. Sinha

¶22

Digitally signed by :- TRIPTI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Saloni Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Saloni Sharma 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

X Minor Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

X Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and Another

X Minor Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shivpoojan @ Pradeep Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Vikki Vs State of U.P. and Another

X (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another