Disposed

Hushana and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2023WRIC/11121/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-parent free-married couple sought protection from the father of the girl, who opposed their union. The High Court directed that no person may interfere with their peaceful living and granted protection via the Superintendent of Police without adjudicating on the marriage's validity.

What did the court decide?

Injunction directed not to interfere in petitioner couple's peaceful living; protection to be given by Superintendent of Police Budaun.

Hushana and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195176

¶2

Court No. - 50

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11121 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Hushana And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Srivastava,Arvind Kumar Sahu Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners appeared and submitted that he has already taken steps for service of notice on respondent No.5.

¶7

As per the office report, notice was issued to respondent No.5 but neither undelivered cover nor AD has been returned back after service. Notice issued to respondent No.5 is deemed sufficient under Sub-section 5 of Section 9 of proviso of CPC.

¶8

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.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are Muslim by religion. They have solemnized their marriage out of their free will and consent on 21.3.2023 at Budaun, after attaining age of majority. A copy of Nikahnama has been annexed as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. The date of birth of petitioner No.1 is mentioned as 1.1.2005 in her Aadhar card and that of petitioner No.2 is mentioned as 18.6.2001 in his Aadhar Card. The petitioners have also applied for online registration of their marriage on 30.3.2023. They have started living together after contracting their marriage peacefully at the place of petitioner No.2 but their marriage has strongly been opposed by respondent No.5, who is father of petitioner No.1. The petitioners are apprehending danger to their life and liberty from respondent No.5. The petitioners have also applied for protection on 24.3.2023 before S.P. concerned but no relief has been obtained from them.

¶10

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.

¶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

¶12

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:

¶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, Budaun i.e., respondent no.3, 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

The petitioners undertake to get their marriage registered 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. No order as to costs.

¶19

Order Date :- 10.10.2023 Kamarjahan

¶20

Digitally signed by :- KAMARJAHAN ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hushana and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hushana and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Gopal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rukhsar Khatoon and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Udaypratap and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another

Smt. Sadhana Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sudha and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another