Allowed

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

Allahabad HC6 Oct 2023WRIC/29603/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court permitted two majors living as husband and wife to reside together. It directed respondents not to interfere with their peaceful life and ensured police protection for any future disturbances, while declining to adjudicate on the marriage's validity.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent No. 4 not to interfere in petitioners' peaceful living; directing Superintendent of Police to protect petitioners in case of any disturbance.

Nisha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:193256

¶3

Court No. - 82

¶4

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29603 of 2023

¶5

Petitioner :- Nisha And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.

¶7

1- Heard Sri Suresh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the record.

¶8

2- By means the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners Nisha d/o Bhoop Singh and Bhoora s/o Abrar claim protection of their lives and liberty as they are living as in live-inrelationship and respondents opposed their such living. They have sought, for the following relief, inter alia:-

¶9

"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directing the respondents and their agents not to interfere in peaceful life of the petitioners they are live in relationship in any manner, whatsoever.

¶10

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS Commanding and directing the respondents no. 2, 3 & 4 and their agents not to harass the petitioners or interfere in the peaceful life of the petitioners to ensure the safety of the life of the petitioners."

¶11

3- Petitioners have filed joint affidavit in support of the averments made in the petition.

¶12

4- Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that both the petitioners are major. They have fallen in love to each other and wish to marry. They are living together since 01.05.2023 at the residence of petitioner no. 2, situated

¶13

¶14

at Peer Bahoda, District Bareilly, at their free will as husband and wife. He further submitted that owing to this reason respondent no. 4 (father of the petitioner no. 1) and other family members of petitioner no. 1, got annoyed. Respondent no. 4 has launched a crusade against the petitioner no. 2. They started creating pressure upon petitioner no. 1 to leave petitioner no. 2. He threaten her in case she went against the wishes of her family members, he will eliminate them by physical violence. It is also submitted that there is serious danger to the lives of the petitioners as they are being threatened and harassed by respondent no. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that petitioners are apprehend that their lives is in greave danger.

¶15

5- Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that for the proof of their age petitioner no. 1 has filed Aadhaar Card, wherein her date of birth is written as 01.01.2004 and petitioner no. 2 has also filed his Aadhaar Card wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 16.05.2001, on the basis of this they claimed themselves major.

¶16

6- Learned counsel for the respondents as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State opposed the contentions of the petitioners and cast doubt about their age. He also submitted that at this stage petitioners have no cause of action to pursue the petition. However, learned counsel for the petitioners refuted his contention. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the facts and the law on the issue involved in the petition.

¶17

7- The perusal of the proof in respect of petitioner’s age and averment made in their joint affidavit, it appears that petitioner no. 1 is of 19 years and petitioner no. 2 is about 23 years old. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioners claims them major.

¶18

8- The Supreme Court in a catena 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,

¶19

¶20

(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, as well as of 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:

¶21

"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."

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the above law laid down by the Apex Court no restrictions can be placed upon the petitioners as with whom they want to stay and where to stay even the relatives of the petitioners cannot substitute their opinion or preference for that of the petitioners. It is also submitted that petitioners want to live a peaceful life they have no criminal history to their credit. Nevertheless, respondent no. 4 is continuously threatening them and causing harassment. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that respondent no. 4 caused threat on 05.05.2023. Then they moved an application to the S.P. Bareilly. It is also averred in the joint affidavit that no FIR has been lodged against petitioner no. 2 till date.

¶23

10Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are at liberty to live together and no person including their parents and others family members, shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful matrimonial life.

¶24

Respondent no. 4 is directed not to create any hindrance in the peaceful living of petitioners. In case any disturbance is caused in this respect the petitioners shall approach the Superintendent of Police, Bareilly i.e., respondent no.2, with a certified copy of this order, who shall provide

¶25

¶26

immediate protection to the petitioners in case of any intervention in the matrimonial life of the petitioner.

¶27

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 this order.

¶28

It is also 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 petitioners said marriage.

¶29

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶30

No order as to costs.

¶31

Order Date :- 6.10.2023

¶32

Israr

¶33

Digitally signed by :- ISRAR AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nisha 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

Mohd Furkan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Ragini Richariya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hans Raj Adiwasi Pno. 960650749 and 26 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

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

Neelam Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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