Disposed

Manisha Raj and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2023WRIC/20820/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by two persons in a live-in relationship seeking protection from their parents. Relying on Apex Court precedents, the court held that majors living by free will cannot be interfered with by parents. The petition was finally disposed of with direction to approach police for protection.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to approach Superintendent of Police for protection; directed to mark attendance at police station monthly for 12 months.

Manisha Raj and Another Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:157032

¶2

Court No. - 50

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20820 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Manisha Raj And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kukmar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶6

Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners with following prayers:-

¶7

i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 2 to 4 not to create any hindrance in peaceful living of the petitioners.

¶8

ii) issue a writ, order or directing in the nature of mandmus commanding and directing the respondents no. 2 to 5 not to take any coercive action against petitioners as well as family members of the petitioner no. 2.

¶9

iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 to ensure to protect the lives and liberty of the petitioners.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents and perused the material placed on record.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have attained the age of majority and they are living in a live-in relationship out of their free will and choice. Petitioner No. 1 had left her parental home on 25.05.2023 and started living with petitioner No. 2, which is lying in District- Shahjahanpur. The native place of petitioner No. 1 is lying in District- Khiri. The date of birth of petitioner No.1- Manisha Raj is 25.12.2001 in her Intermediate Mark-sheet and that of petitioner No.2 Pavan Kumar is 01.01.2001, however as per learned counsel in Aadhar Card, his date of birth wrongly mentioned as 01.01.2004. They have filed joint affidavit in support of their pleadings made in present petition. Both the petitioners are living together in a live-in relationship driven by love affairs and deserved protection of law

¶12

as they are apprehending threat from respondent No. 4. Petitioner No. 2 is doing private job in Ghaziabad and works as a labourer in factory and earns around Rs. 15 lakh per month and is able of maintain petitioner No. 1. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also recognized live-in relationship, if that is of long duration and living in live-in relationship is not an offence and same requires protection of law, in view of the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that the petitioners are sui juris and they are living together out of their consent.

¶13

Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may kindly issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to provide protection to them from respondent No. 4, the father of the petitioner No.1 who is constantly harassing and threatening them. It is stated that they have apprehension that private respondent can eliminate them for the honour of their family. In case this Court does not grant them protection, their lives may be endangered.

¶14

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that this is admitted fact that petitioners have not solemnized their marriage as yet and they have stated to be living in live-in relationship. He further submitted that as per instructions received, when local police visited the address of the petitioners given in present petition, they were not found therein.

¶15

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.

¶16

The Hon'ble 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 together 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Devi (supra) has held as under:

¶17

"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."

¶18

In the present case, both the petitioners have claimed to be major and are living together with cordial relations out of their own freewill. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with liberty to petitioners to approach the concerned Superintendent of Police or Senior Superintendent of Police with a certified copy of this order, in person, and provide their present address proof, so that petitioners are not threatened or tortured by any person, even if they happen to be the parents of petitioners.

¶19

Petitioners are directed to mark their attendance before the concerned police station, where they are presently residing, once in a month for a period of 12 months.

¶20

Copy of the order be sent to the concerned S.H.O. of the Police Station for information.

¶21

It is made clear that this order is being passed upon the averment made by the petitioners that no F.I.R. has been lodged in respect to kidnapping or abduction of the girl. If, any such F.I.R. has already been lodged against the petitioner(s), this order shall automatically come to an end.

¶22

12.With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶23

Order Date :- 4.8.2023 Nitika Sri.

¶24

Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manisha Raj and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manisha Raj 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devman Rai Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Gudiya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohammad Arif Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chhotu @ Prem Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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