Allowed

Mantasha Khatun Khan and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2023WRIC/27167/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted protection to two adult Muslim petitioners allowing them to live together despite family opposition. The Court directed the State to protect them if disturbed, conditional on registering their marriage within two months, while clarifying no opinion was passed on the marriage's validity.

What did the court decide?

Protection granted to live together; marriage registration within two months required; immediate police protection upon disturbance.

Mantasha Khatun Khan and Another Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:172472

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27167 of 2023 Petitioner :- Mantasha Khatun Khan And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rameshwar Gaud,Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for a direction to 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 are Muslim by religion, they have solemnized their marriage/nikah, driven by love affairs, out of their own free will and choice on 22.07.2023, copy of the nikahnama is annexed as annexure-1 to the petition. They have also applied online registration of their marriage. They have filed joint affidavit in support of their pleadings in writ petition.

¶8

Date of birth of petitioner no.1 is mentioned as 18.07.2004 and that of petitioner no.2 is mentioned as 01.01.2001 in their aadhar cards, thus both have attained the age of majority on the date of marriage. They started living as husband and wife peacefully but their marriage and relationship is strongly opposed by father and other family members of petitioner no.1. They are threatening the petitioners constantly of dire consequences. Petitioner no.1 moved an application before SP, Sant Kabir Nagar for protection of herself and petitioner no.2 from her family members but no action has been taken thereon.

¶9

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.

¶10

In view of the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to the 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.

¶11

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 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:

¶12

"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."

¶13

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

¶14

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 private respondent to file a recall application for recall of this order.

¶15

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 automatically vacated.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 23.8.2023 Shahroz

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mantasha Khatun Khan and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mantasha Khatun Khan 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

Aditya Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Arif and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gulrez Khan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Nazreen Khatoon and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sumaila and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others