Disposed

Shamim Bi @ Hina and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2023WRIC/26699/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought protection from interference in their married life and threats to their lives after their father filed an FIR. The court, relying on Supreme Court precedents affirming individual autonomy in marriage, granted them liberty to live together and directed the Superintendent of Police to provide immediate protection against disturbances. The order is recallable if documents are fabri

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to live together; direction to Superintendent of Police to provide immediate protection against disturbances.

Shamim Bi @ Hina and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26699 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Shamim Bi @ Hina And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sageer Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

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.

¶6

The petitioners claim that they are adults and they solemnized marriage on 01.01.2021 as per Muslim Rites and Rituals and out of their wedlock, a child was born on 21.07.2022. A marriage certificate/nikahnama dated 01.01.2021 has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the petition. The father of petitioner No.1 has lodged FIR against petitioner No.2 and his family members bearing Case Crime No.368 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C. The Investigating Officer conducted enquiry and found no case against petitioner No.2 and his family members, therefore, submitted final report on 19.07.2021. It is stated that for the said reason, the private respondents and their other family members have got annoyed and there is serious danger to the lives of the petitioners as they are being threatened and harassed.

¶7

In support of their age, the petitioners have brought on record their proof of age; wherein, the date of birth of the petitioner no. 1 is shown as 17.11.1999 and that of petitioner no. 2 as 01.01.2000. Thus, it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major.

¶8

It is stated that they have apprehension that private respondent can eliminate them for the honour of their family and the private respondents are resorting to physical violence. The petitioners apprehend danger to their life, in case this Court does not grant them protection.

¶9

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

¶10

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. & ors., 2018 SCC Online SC 343, has held as under:

¶11

"75. ...The choice of a partner whether within or outside marriage lies within the exclusive domain of each individual. Intimacies of marriage lie within a core zone of privacy, which is inviolable. The absolute right of an individual to choose a life partner is not in the least affected by matters of faith. The Constitution guarantees to each individual the right freely to practise, profess and propagate religion. Choices of faith and belief as indeed choices in matters of marriage lie within an area where individual autonomy is supreme. The law prescribes conditions for a valid marriage. It provides remedies when relationships run

¶12

aground. Neither the State nor the law can dictate a choice of partners or limit the free ability of every person to decide on these matters. They form the essence of personal liberty under the Constitution.…"

¶13

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Devi v. The Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi and others , (1976) 3 SCC 234, has held as under:

¶14

"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."

¶15

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 married life. In case any disturbance is caused in the peaceful living of the petitioners, the petitioners shall approach the Superintendent of Police/ S.S.P. concerned, with a copy of this order, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 10.1.2023 Nitin Verma

¶19

Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shamim Bi @ Hina and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamim Bi @ Hina 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rajkumar Vs State of Up through Principle Secretary (Home) Up at Lucknow

Om Shankar Kaushal Vs State of U.P.

Shahnawaj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sohanlal Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Afarina Khatoon and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others