Partly allowed

Smt. Kajal Rai and Another v. the State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2023WRIC/2883/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed police authorities to protect two major adult petitioners living as husband and wife from threats by their respective families. The Court held that adults have the right to choose their place of residence without parent or relative interference under Article 21, though it did not adjudicate the marriage's validity.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 2 and 3 to provide protection to petitioners and ensure their peaceful living; liberty to Respondent No. 4 to recall order if documents are fabricated.

Smt. Kajal Rai and Another Vs the State of Up and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 89

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2883 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Kajal Rai And Another Respondent :- The State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Shri Shivam Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Shri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned C.S.C for the State are present.

¶6

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

¶7

I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 and 3 to ensure the peaceful marriage life of the petitioners and to prevent the respondent no. 4 or other authorities from giving any threat to the life of the petitioners and not to interfere in he right of privacy and personal liberty provide under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶8

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 and 3 to provide security to the petitioners and not to take any illegal means for the separation of the petitioners.

¶9

III. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case

¶10

IV. To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioners.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the father of the petitioner no. 1 lodged a first information report against her husband who is petitioner no. 2. After lodging of the first information report, petitioner no. 2 approached this court by way of filing Application under Section 482 no. 6582 of 2023 and vide order dated 28.03.2023 matter is sub judice and quashing of the FIR is also sub judice. It is further submitted that after lodging of the first information report by her father, petitioner no.1 and petitioner no. 2 are living as husband and wife in her matrimonial house. It is further submitted that petitioner no.1 lodged a first information report against her parental family members, which is case no. 99 of 2023 under section 506 of I.P.C on 18.02.2023.

¶12

The petitioners approached the authorities but they have not been given any protection. Petitioner no. 1 is well educated and she is

¶13

studying in B.A Part-I and she is major and Petitioner no. 2 is a ITI qualified after class-12, he is also major. It is further submitted that the life of the petitioners is in danger.

¶14

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, 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:

¶15

"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."

¶16

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner 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 Police Commissioner, Commissionerate, Ghaziabad, i.e., the second respondent, with a certified copy of this order, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners.

¶17

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.

¶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

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

¶20

Order Date :- 12.4.2023 Saurabh

¶21

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

Smt. Kajal Rai and Another v. the State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kajal Rai and Another v. the State of Up 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

Vijay Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P.

X- Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagdeesh Prasad Nishad (Minor) Vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Usha @ Ziya Khan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

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