Disposed

Nagma and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC28 Oct 2023WRIC/28960/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that major individuals with free will can live together free from parental interference. Issued protection under Article 226 against harassment, conditional on marriage registration within two months, without adjudicating marriage validity.

What did the court decide?

Protection order issued to secure life and liberty. Respondents directed to provide immediate protection if disturbance is caused.

Nagma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:205766

¶2

Court No. - 50

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28960 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Nagma And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Danish Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶6

Instant civil miscellaneous writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent nos. 2 and 3 to protect and safeguard the life and liberty of petitioners from respondent no.4 and refrain the latter from harassing or victimizing the petitioners in any manner.

¶7

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

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners belong to Muslim community and they have solemnized their marriage according to Muslim rites and rituals on 07.07.2023 after obtaining majority. A copy of Nikahnama has been filed with the present petition as Annexure No.3. This is first marriage of the petitioners. The date of birth of petitioner No.1 is recorded as 01.01.2002 and that of petitioner No. 2 is 10.01.1984 in their respective Adhar Cards. They have also applied online for registration of their marriage and have also made a declaration of their marriage before the notary public on 08.08.2023.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners has averred in the writ petition that petitioners are living as wife and husband but their relationship is not relished and agreed by respondent No.4, who is father of petitioner No. 1 and is regularly hurling threats to the petitioners. They apprehend danger to their life and liberty from respondent No. 4 and his family members. The petitioners have also filed joint affidavit in support of their pleadings. 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. Petitioner No.1 had moved an application before S.S.P. Moradabad on 12.08.2023 seeking protection for herself and petitioner No. 2

¶10

from respondent no.4 and his associates but no action has been taken thereon.

¶11

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel raised objection on contention made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶12

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.

¶13

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:

¶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 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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

marriage registered within the stipulated period herein above, the protection granted under this order shall stand automatically vacated.

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 28.10.2023 Madhurima

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nagma and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagma 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

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

Smt. Pooja Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Arman Siddiqui and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arif Hashmi Alias Aditya Arya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Gihar and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another