Disposed

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

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2023WRIC/22118/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a matrimonial matter, the Allahabad High Court granted a mandamus directing respondents not to interfere with the petitioners' peaceful life or harass them, directed provision of security upon police complaint, and mandated marriage registration within two months to maintain protection, reserving the liberty to recall the order if documents are forged, without adjudicating the marriage's validi

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents not to interfere or harass; grant security if approached by petitioners with this order; marriage registration within two months to retain protection.

Smt. Laxmi Kumari @ Divyanshi and Another Vs State… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:154656

¶2

Court No. - 50

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22118 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Laxmi Kumari @ Divyanshi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of petitioners is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel.

¶8

Present writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:-

¶9

"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 not to interfere in the peaceful matrimonial life of the petitioners and further not to harass them in any manner except in accordance with law.

¶10

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the naure of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to provide security for the safety of petitioners."

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they tied nuptial bond out of free will and choice, driven by love affairs on 26.02.2023 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Greater NOIDA (Gautam Buddh Nagar), copy of marriage certificate is annexed as annexure 3 to the petition. They also applied for online registration of their marriage, hard copy of the application has been filed as annexure no. 4 to petition. They have filed joint affidavit in support of their pleadings. They have already attained the age of majority as date of birth of petitioner no. 1 is mentioned as 09.08.2002 in her high-school certificate and that of petitioner no. 2 is mentioned as 21.11.1998 in High School certificate. They started living as husband and wife after marriage but their marriage is strongly opposed by respondent no. 4, who is father of petitioner no. 1, and petitioners are apprehending danger to their life and liberty from him as he is hurling constant threats to them and is interfering in their marital life. Petitioner no. 1 moved an application before S.P. Mainpuri wherein she has prayed for being given protection from respondent no. 4.

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

The petitioners undertake to get their marriage registered under "Uttar Pradesh Marriages Registration Rules, 2017" within a period of two months. If the petitioners could not get their marriage registered within the stipulated period herein above, the protection granted under this order shall stand

¶19

automatically vacated.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 2.8.2023 Vikram

¶23

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Laxmi Kumari @ Divyanshi 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

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

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

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