Allowed

Smt. Nisha Rani and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2023WRIC/22058/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed a writ petition seeking protection for an inter-religious couple. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the bench held that major individuals have the liberty to live together without interference from relatives. The court granted protection and directed the police to provide immediate assistance if disturbed, noting the order does not adjudicate ma

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to live together; Superintendent of Police directed to provide immediate protection if disturbed; liberty to recall order if documents are forged.

Smt. Nisha Rani and Another Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:155636

¶2

Court No. - 50

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22058 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Nisha Rani And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ranvijay Chaubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State - respondents.

¶7

Present writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:-

¶8

"(I). Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to provide adequate security for peace living matrimonial life of the petitioners in light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Saktiwahini Vs. Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192.

¶9

(II) Issue writ order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to not interfere in peaceful matrimonial life of the petitioners."

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are inter religious couple, they tied nuptial bond out of free will and choice, driven by love affairs on 04.07.2023 and they got enrolled their marriage under Section 13 of Special Marriage Act, 1954, copy of marriage certificate is annexed as annexure 3 to the petition. They have filed joint afÏdavit in support of their pleadings. They have already attained the age of majority as date of birth of petitioner no. 1 is mentioned as 10.05.2001 in her high school marksheet and that of petitioner no. 2 is mentioned as 29.12.2000 in birth certificate issued by Registrar (Birth & Death) Nagar Nigam Varanasi as well as Pan Card. They started living as husband and wife after marriage but their marriage is strongly opposed by respondent nos. 4 to 6, who are relatives of petitioner no. 1, and respondent 7 who is boy

¶11

friend of sister of petitioner no. 1 and petitioners are apprehending danger to their life and liberty from them as they are hurling constant threats to them and is interfering in their marital life. As the marriage of the petitioners is inter religion. The petitioner no. 1 also moved an application before the Police Commissioner, Varanasi through registered post wherein she has prayed for being given protection from respondent nos. 4 to 7.

¶12

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

¶13

Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶14

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 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:

¶15

"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

¶16

preference for that of the petitioner in such a matter."

¶17

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 concerned, with a copy of this order, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners.

¶18

A liberty is granted to the private respondent that if the documents brought on the record are fabricated or forged, it will be open for the respondent to file a recall application for recall of this order.

¶19

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.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶21

Order Date :- 2.8.2023 Vikram

¶22

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Nisha Rani and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nisha Rani and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 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

Shyam Mohan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

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

Smt. Laxmi Kumari @ Divyanshi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

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