Allowed

Smt. Shivani and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Aug 2023WRIC/29054/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, major adults married in 2023, seek protection from respondent father's interference and threats to their lives. The Court permitted them to live together without interference, directed the Superintendent of Police to provide protection against disturbances, and conditioned the grant of protection on registering the marriage within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted liberty to live together; directed State to provide protection against interference; marriage registration within two months mandatory.

Smt. Shivani and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:172294

¶2

Court No. - 92

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29054 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Shivani And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents not to interfere in their married life and also for protection of their lives and liberty.

¶8

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that they are major. It has been averred in paragraph 4 of the petition that the petitioners are illiterate therefore they have relied on the Aadhar Card as proof of age. Date of birth of petitioner no. 1 is mentioned as 10.01.2000 in the Aadhar Card and the date of birth of petitioner no. 2 is mentioned as 19.02.1998 in Aadhar Card. Both have solemnized their marriage/Nikah in the presence of witnesses on 18.08.2023 out of their own free will. Nikahnama is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. They have applied online registration of the marriage on 20.8.2023. They have filed joint affidavit in support of their pleadings in writ petition. They started living as husband and wife after marriage but their marriage is strongly opposed by respondent no. 4, who is father of petitioner no. 1. He is constantly interfering in marital life of petitioners and is hurling threats to them. Petitioners apprehend danger to their lives and liberty from respondent no. 4. Petitioner no. 1 has moved an application before Superintendent of Police concerned seeking protection for herself and petitioner no. 2 but no action has been taken thereon.

¶9

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

¶10

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 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:

¶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

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and 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.

¶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 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

¶17

alleged marriage of the petitioners and this order, in no way, expresses opinion about the validity of their marriage. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 25.8.2023 Puspendra

¶18

Digitally signed by :- PUSPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Shivani and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shivani 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

Vijay Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

Raghvendra @ Vikash and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Veenu @ Beenu and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ajay Singh Parihar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ayush Gupta Vs State of U.P.