Allowed

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

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2023WRIC/28032/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, an adult couple married in 2023, sought protection from paternal threats under Article 226. The Court granted a protection order directed at police authorities, affirming adults' right to choose their living partners free from parental interference while mandating marriage registration.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued to police to provide protection; liberty granted to recall order if documents are fabricated; marriage registration mandated within two months.

Priyanka and Another Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:209575

¶2

Court No. - 50

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28032 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Priyanka And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishnu Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vishnu Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners appeared through virtual mode as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India through emode.

¶8

From perusal of the supplementary affidavit dated 08.09.2023 it appears that this supplementary affidavit has been filed in the form of joint affidavit filed in support of the pleadings in present writ petition.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have solemnized their marriage on 11.07.2023 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals at Arya Samaj, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad. Copies of Marriage Registration Certificate dated 11.07.2023 issued by Registration office, Ghaziabad and marriage certificate dated 11.07.2023 issued by the Arya Samaj, Ghaziabad which are annexed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.

¶10

He further submitted that date of birth of petitioner No.1 is mentioned as 01.03.1998 and date of birth of petitioner No.2 is mentioned as 05.10.1993 as mentioned in their High School Marksheet respectively.

¶11

However, respondent No.3 who is father of petitioner No.1 alongwith family members hurling constant threats to the petitioners in their peaceful married life, he was strongly opposed to the relationship and the marriage of the petitioners.

¶12

This is the first marriage of the petitioners and till date no FIR has been lodged in this matter. The petitioners have sought protection for themselves in the present writ petition. The

¶13

petitioner No.1 moved an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etah on 11.07.2023 to seek protection of herself and husband from respondent No.3 and their relatives, however no action was taken thereon.

¶14

He further submitted that this Court has been pleased to provide interim protection to the petitioners, which has been extended from time to time.

¶15

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.

¶16

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:

¶17

"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."

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Therefore, the protection order in the nature of mandamus is issued to respondent numbers 2 and 3 to secure life and liberty of petitioners.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 1.11.2023 Ashish/-

¶25

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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