Allowed

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

Allahabad HC6 Oct 2023WRIC/29613/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 226 sought protection for adult petitioners living together against interference by relatives. The Court, citing Supreme Court precedents on adult autonomy, directed respondent no. 4 not to hinder their peaceful living and prescribed police protection upon disturbance. The Court expressly stated it did not adjudicate the marriage's validity.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent no. 4 not to create hindrance in petitioners' living; ordered Superintendent of Police to provide protection if disturbance occurs.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:193211

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29613 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Reena And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amar Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Amar Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the record.

¶7

By means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, namely, Smt. Reena and Rishi Pal have sought following main prayer:

¶8

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of petitioners.

¶9

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in peaceful married life of petitioners."

¶10

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

¶11

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that according to Adhar Card, the date of birth of petitioner no.1-Smt. Reena is 13.7.1998 and as such she is major aged about 25 years. The petitioner no.2-Rishi Pal is also major aged about 40 years as his date of birth is 1.1.1983. It is further submitted that on 15.8.2023 petitioner no. 1-Smt. Reena has herself left her parental house along with petitioner no.2 and they have already performed marriage on 16.8.2023 in Shiv Temple at Kayamganj, Farrukhabad, according to Hindu Rites and Rituals and since then they are living as husband and wife. Not only this, they had applied for registration of their marriage on line, which was successful on 18.8.2023, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-No. 2 to this writ petition. It is also urged that it is their

¶12

first marriage.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that respondent no. 4 is not happy with the marriage of petitioners as he wants to marry his daughter (petitioner no. 1) with his own choice, which was objected by petitioner no. 1 and solemnised her marriage as stated above. On this score, the respondent no. 4 along with his associates is trying to humiliate and disturb the happy marital life of the petitioners and threatened to lodge the FIR against them, but till date no FIR has been lodged.

¶14

Learned Standing Counsel refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, but could not deny the facts and law in this behalf.

¶15

In view of the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to 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, 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:

¶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

Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are at liberty to live

¶19

together and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

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 their marriage.

¶23

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

¶24

No order as to costs.

¶25

Order Date :- 6.10.2023 M. Tarik

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Reena 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

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