Sandhya Kumari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 90

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11399 of 2023

Petitioner :- Sandhya Kumari And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

¶5

Amendment application filed by learned counsel for the petitioners is allowed.

¶6

Necessary amendment be incorporated during the course of the day.

¶7

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned standing counsel for the State.

¶8

Present petition has been filed by the petitioners claiming protection of their lives and liberty as they are living together in live-in-relationship. The averments made in the petition are supported by the joint affidavit of the petitioners. Further, it is stated that private respondent and other family members have got annoyed and there is serious danger to the lives of the petitioners as they are being threatened and harassed.

¶9

In support of their age, petitioner no.1 has brought on record copy of her marks-sheet of High School Examination-2009 wherein her date of birth is shown as 20.05.1993 and petitioner no.2 has brought on record copy of his Marks-Sheet of High School Examination-2009 wherein his date of birth is shown as 11.10.1994. Thus, it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major.

¶10

The petitioners have averred in the writ petition that they are living in live-in-relationship. It is stated that they have apprehension that private respondent can eliminate them for the honour of her family.

¶11

In case this Court does not grant them protection, their lives may be endangered.

¶12

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. 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:

¶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, this Court is 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 Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah i.e. respondent no.2, with a copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Court, who shall

¶15

provide immediate protection to the petitioners.

¶16

A liberty is granted to the private respondent that if the documents brought on the record are fabricated or forged or any false averment has been made or facts have been concealed, it will be open to him to file a recall application for recall of this order. The protection is only against the use of criminal force or any illegal or unlawful act. However, any individual affected or aggrieved or any public authority may take lawful action for violation of any law civil or criminal.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 2.5.2023

¶19

MN/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MAHENDRA NATH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sandhya Kumari and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandhya Kumari and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Khushbu Bharti and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nashra B and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Komal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Puneeta Kumari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Divyanshi Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others