Partly allowed

Smt. Savita Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Sept 2023WRIC/26714/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed a writ petition seeking protection for major couples living together. The court upheld that relatives cannot interfere with the choice of major individuals to live together and granted police protection contingent on marriage registration within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 2 (SSP Varanasi) to provide immediate protection if there is disturbance; liberty granted to Respondent No. 4 if documents are forged.

Smt. Savita Devi and Another Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:184878

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26714 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Savita Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Govind Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ram Govind, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶7

Present Writ Petition has been filed inter-alia for the following reliefs:-

¶8

"(a)Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 and 3 to protect the safe guard of the petitioners' life and liberty and life and liberty of the family members of the petitioner no. 2, restraining the respondents from harassing/torturing and victimizing them by any means whatsoever."

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are major, aged about 25 years and 27 years respectively, in support of which they have filed their Aadhar Card and they are living together out of their own free and sweet will but the respondent no. 4, i.e., brother of the petitioner no. 1/ girl is annoyed. They have solemnized marriage in a Temple situated at Rasoolabad and have applied the application for registration of their marriage (copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit). The respondent no. 4 and family members of the petitioner no. 1 raised serious objection and being annoyed they are giving threat to implicate them falsely in a criminal case and the police authority are not helping the petitioners to protect their constitutional right of life and liberty.

¶10

The petitioners approached the authorities but they have not been given any protection. Petitioner no. 2 is earning Rs. 15,000/- per month by a private job. It is further submitted that no first information report has

¶11

been lodged against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the life of the petitioners is in danger.

¶12

It is settled 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. (vide 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, and 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:

¶13

"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."

¶14

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioners are major 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, Varanasi, i.e., the second respondent, with a certified copy of this order, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners.

¶15

A liberty is granted to the respondent no. 4 that if the documents brought on the record are fabricated or forged, it will be open to him to file a recall application for recalling this order.

¶16

The petitioners undertake to get their marriage registered within a period of two months.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

2 of 3

¶20

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is partly allowed . No order as to costs.

¶21

Order Date :- 22.9.2023 Anjali

¶22

3 of 3

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Savita Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savita Devi 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

Smt. Sheela Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ankit @ Pushkal Sirohi Vs State of U.P.and Another

Tarun Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sadhana Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

State of Up vs Pradeep and another

Smt. Kamlesh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others