Disposed

Smt. Divyanshi Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 Jun 2023WRIC/20291/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Major petitioners challenged composition of marriage against respondent's objection. Court directed Superintendent of Police to consider grievance and ensure safety and peaceful living if averments regarding threats are found true.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to make representation to Superintendent of Police; directed to consider grievance and ensure safety.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:128883

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20291 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Divyanshi Mishra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arjun Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and perused the record.

¶7

In view of the proposed order, notice to private Respondent No. 4 is dispensed with.

¶8

Petitioners in their Writ Petition have stated that Petitioner No. 1 has already attained the age of majority and as per High School marksheet, her date of birth is 01.01.2003. It has further been stated that Petitioner No. 2 has also attained the age of majority and his date of birth as per High School marksheet is 19.06.1995.

¶9

Petitioners in their Writ Petition have averred that though they have married each other but Respondent No. 4 is not happy with their marriage and, therefore, he is creating all sort of difficulties in peaceful living of the petitioners. Petitioners have further stated in the writ petition that Respondent No. 4 is also extending threats to the petitioners. Petitioners in their Writ Petition have also categorically stated that as per their best knowledge, till date, no criminal case has been lodged against them.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has vehemently argued that once the petitioners are major, they have every right to marry and to live their life peacefully.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that State Respondents are under obligation to ensure safety and security of the petitioners and are also under obligation to ensure an atmosphere in which they can live their married life peacefully.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners has next argued that since threats were extended by Respondent No. 4, therefore in the said

¶13

circumstances, petitioners have already submitted representation to Superintendent of Police, District Kanpur Dehat on 9.6.2023 but police is not co-operating with them.

¶14

I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

¶15

From the averments made in the Writ Petition, prima-facie, it appears that both the petitioners are major and they have married.

¶16

In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioners are permitted to make a representation to Superintendent of Police, District Kanpur Dehat annexing therewith the copy of present Writ Petition within ten days from today.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is finally disposed of with a direction to Superintendent of Police, District Kanpur Dehat to consider the grievance of the petitioners and if averments made in the writ petition are found to be true then Superintendent of Police, District Kanpur Deaht is also directed to ensure that nobody could extend threat to petitioners and they can live their life peacefully.

¶18

Order Date :- 27.6.2023 Salim

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SALIM PRAVEJ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Divyanshi Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Divyanshi Mishra 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Km. Tara Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

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

Smt. Shalinee Pal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Suresh Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others