Partly allowed

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

Allahabad HC1 May 2023WRIC/12674/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court granted protection to two adult petitioners living together against threats from private respondents. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that adults of free will cannot be interfered with. The petition was partly allowed, granting protection while clarifying it did not adjudicate the validity of the marriage.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted liberty to live together; directed to approach Superintendent of Police for protection if disturbed; liberty granted to private respondent to recall order if documents were fabrica

Nashra B and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12674 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Nashra B And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Singh,Amrendra Nath Rai Counsel for Respondent :- CSC

¶4

Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

¶5

Second Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shashank Pathak, State Law Officer.

¶7

Present petition has been filed by the petitioners claiming protection of their lives and liberty as they have married of their own free will and are adults and are living together. 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.

¶8

In support of their age, petitioner no.1 has brought on record her High School Certificate-cum-Mark Sheet wherein her date of birth is shown as 06.12.1998 and petitioner no.2 has brought on record his Driving Lice nce wherein his date of birth is shown as 07.03.1997. Thus, it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major. It is also stated that the relative of respondent no.4 is political leader and they are in search of the petitioners. The petitioner no.1 could not come to Allahabad for swearing the joint affidavit and thus she has got prepared/ swear a notorial affidavit authorizing the petitioner no.1 to complete the formalities on her behalf.

¶9

It is further stated that the petitioners have already brought on record the certificate of registration of their marriage dated 29.03.2023.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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 Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur i.e. respondent no.2, with a copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Court, 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 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.

¶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. The protection is only against the use of criminal force or any illegal or unlawful act. However, any individual effected or aggrieved or any public authority may take lawful action for violation of any law

¶17

civil or criminal.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 1.5.2023

¶20

C. MANI

¶21

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nashra B 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

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

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

Reeta Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

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

Smt. Archana and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others