Allowed

Gulafsha and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2023WRIC/25130/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought directions to prevent parental interference in the petitioners' married life and protect their lives. The Hon'ble Court allowed the petition, directing the State to provide protection. The petitioners were ordered to register their marriage within two months, upon condition that the protection would vacate if registration is delayed.

What did the court decide?

Permission to live together granted; protection directed against respondent No.4; marriage registration within two months ordered or protection vacated.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:209262

¶2

Court No. - 50

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25130 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Gulafsha And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sachin Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶6

The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents not to interfere in their married life and also for protection of their lives and liberty.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have solemnized their Nikah out of their free will and consent on 10.7.2023 at a mosque in the city of Bareilly, a photocopy of Nikahnama has been annexed as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. The petitioners have filed joint affidavit in support of their pleadings made in present writ petition. The date of birth of petitioner No.1 is mentioned as 1.1.1997 and that of petitioner No.2 is mentioned as 1.1.2000 in their respective Aadhar Card. The petitioners have filed joint affidavit in support of their pleadings made in present writ petition. After marriage, they have started living as husband and wife at the place of petitioner No.2. However, respondent No.4, who is father of petitioner No.1 is strongly opposed to their relationship and marriage. Respondent No.4 alongwith his family members interfering in the married life of petitioners. He is hurling constant threats to them. The petitioners are apprehending danger to their life and liberty from respondent No.4. The petitioner No.1 moved an application for protection on 20.7.2023 through registered post before S. S.P., Moradabad as well as SHO concerned but no relief has been obtained from them.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State functionaries. 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.

¶9

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

¶10

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:

¶11

"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."

¶12

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 Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad i.e., respondent no.2, with a certified copy of this order, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners.

¶13

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

¶14

The petitioners undertake to apply online for registration of their marriage and get their marriage registered 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 automatically vacated.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 1.11.2023 Kamarjahan

¶18

Digitally signed by :- KAMARJAHAN ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gulafsha and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulafsha 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sameena Warsi @ Sameena Gangwar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

Smt. Vimla and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Payank Kaushal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Priyanka and Another Vs State of U.P. through Secretary, Ministry of Home and 2 Others